Whitesell & Sons ex rel. Maul v. Peck
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Petition for writ of restitution. Oct. T., 1894, No. 238. From the record it appeared that M. H. Stevenson, the petitioner, on November 26, 1892, purchased a one half interest in real estate in Pittsburg from Harry R. Peck. On the same day a judgment against the land was satisfied of record by White-sell & Sons, the legal plaintiffs in the judgment and attorneys of record for the use of Frederick Maul.
Read the full summary
Petition for writ of restitution. Oct. T., 1894, No. 238. From the record it appeared that M. H. Stevenson, the petitioner, on November 26, 1892, purchased a one half interest in real estate in Pittsburg from Harry R. Peck. On the same day a judgment against the land was satisfied of record by White-sell & Sons, the legal plaintiffs in the judgment and attorneys of record for the use of Frederick Maul. Subsequently the court of common pleas, No. 3, of Allegheny County, on the application of Maul ordered that the satisfaction of the judgment should be stricken from the record. Stevenson…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This is a proper cas'e for restitution. It might properly have been awarded by the court below, as the judgment was collected after the appeal to this court was taken and did not regularly appear as part of the record here. Having been brought to our attention however by petition and motion, we now have no hesitation in saying that a writ of restitution should issue out of the court below.
The writ is awarded.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Reilly v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Marra v. MarraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Metro Real Estate v. Siaway, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
- Wolongevicz v. Stegmaier Brewing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- In Re HoppeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.