Enters v. Peres
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, from which the record of this case was returned on a writ of' error, the defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, brought an action on a bond, given to their testator by Lewis Enters, the-plaintiff in error, dated the 8th of October, 1813, conditioned for the payment of two thousand two hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents.
Read the full summary
In the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, from which the record of this case was returned on a writ of' error, the defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, brought an action on a bond, given to their testator by Lewis Enters, the-plaintiff in error, dated the 8th of October, 1813, conditioned for the payment of two thousand two hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents. The plaintiffs also gave in evidence a mortgage,, bearing the same date as the bond, and given to secure its payment. The defendant called, as a witness, Andrew Busch, who having-been…
1Per curiam
— Had the suit been on the mortgage, the witness and the plaintiff having concurrent interests in the land, would have had direct and conflicting interests in the event of the contest, which would have rendered the former incompetent. The action is, however, on the bond, and although the mortgaged premises may possibly be levied under the judgment, that is by no means a necessary consequence, the personal estate of the defendant being equally *280liable; so that the interest of the witness depending on the contingency of the fund for payment of his debt, being taken away by a superior lien,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Linsley v. LovelySupreme Court of Vermont · 1853