Rush v. Rush
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 149, July T., 1892, by Anna B. Abraham and Mary Elizabeth Taylor, heirs and legatees, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., June T., 1887, No. 223, in case of W. J. Rush, executor of S. Rush, deceased, v. C. H. Rush,’ discharging rule to strike off satisfaction of judgment. Rule to strike off satisfaction of judgment. From the record it appeared that Sebastian Rush died Feb. 9, 1878, leaving a will, with his sons, Charles H. Rush and W. J. Rush, as executors.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 149, July T., 1892, by Anna B. Abraham and Mary Elizabeth Taylor, heirs and legatees, from order of C. P. Fayette Co., June T., 1887, No. 223, in case of W. J. Rush, executor of S. Rush, deceased, v. C. H. Rush,’ discharging rule to strike off satisfaction of judgment. Rule to strike off satisfaction of judgment. From the record it appeared that Sebastian Rush died Feb. 9, 1878, leaving a will, with his sons, Charles H. Rush and W. J. Rush, as executors. Charles H. Rush was indebted to his father on two promissory notes, one for two thousand dollars and another for three thousand…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
As the two notes which made the sum of five thousand dollars were given by the defendant to his father in the lifetime of the latter, there was sufficient reason for the giving of the judgment note after his death to the plaintiff as executor. The purpose of the judgment note was simply to protect the estate against any possible loss that might arise from liabilities incurred by C. H. Rush as surety for other persons, and when that danger was removed there was no further reason for the continuance of the judgment. ' It was never given, and it was not intended to be given, to secure…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pike v. Hart & HébertSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1878