Budd v. Olver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 46, July T., 1891, by plaintiff, Mary P. Budd, from decree of C. P. Wayne Co., Oet. T., 1890, No. 168, on petition for subrogation. Petitions for order of subrogation.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 46, July T., 1891, by plaintiff, Mary P. Budd, from decree of C. P. Wayne Co., Oet. T., 1890, No. 168, on petition for subrogation. Petitions for order of subrogation. From tbe depositions presented before the court below, Seely, P. J., the facts appeared to be as follows: William A. Olver was defendant in several judgments in which he appeared simply as a codefendant with his son, the other defendant in the judgment, though his actual relation was that of surety for the said son. On October 8, 1890, land of W. A. Olver was sold under one of these judgments, in which the other…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The order of subrogation, made by the court below, provided that the right of Matthew Clemo, executor of Joseph Wherry, deceased, to receive upon his judgment, against George D. -Olver, entered to No. 376, May T., 1888, the proceeds of the sale made by the sheriff, Nov. 28, 1890, of the land of George D. Olver, should not be affected by the decree. We think this limitation of the order was entirely right. Subrogation is a matter of grace, not of right, and is a creature of pure *198equity. It will never be decreed where it works injustice. In this case we have an equity of a surety,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pensacola State Bank v. ThornberryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1915
- Brown v. McCulloughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Miners National Bank v. Frackville Sewerage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Rakowski v. RosenthalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920