Koecker v. Fidelity Trust
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania : Of January Term 1883, No. 403. This was an appeal by the 'Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company, from the decision of the prothonotary of the supreme court dismissing exceptions filed to bail in error. The action in the court below was begun by a scire facias sur mortgage made by Joseph D. Koecker. Judgment was recovered thereon by the Fidelity Insurance, &c. Go. for $4,126, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
Read the full summary
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania : Of January Term 1883, No. 403. This was an appeal by the 'Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company, from the decision of the prothonotary of the supreme court dismissing exceptions filed to bail in error. The action in the court below was begun by a scire facias sur mortgage made by Joseph D. Koecker. Judgment was recovered thereon by the Fidelity Insurance, &c. Go. for $4,126, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. A writ of error wa,s then taken by said Koecker, and bail entered with two sureties in the amount of only $4,500, instead…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was filed
Pee Curiam.
It is true, Hosie v. Gray, 23 P. F. Smith 502, does rule, that, the recognizance of bail in error, where the proceedings were by scire facias on a mortgage, need not be in double the amount of the judgment. The mortgage, however, in that case stipulated that “ the lien and collection of the purchase-money shall be limited and - restricted to the property covered by, and included in, the mortgage.” It was, therefore, not only a proceeding in rem, but no other remedy could be invoked. There was no personal liability. The present case shows no such…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smead v. StuartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Schafer v. OlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911