Patterson v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct T., 1900, No. 408, in verdict for plaintiff in case of Robert E. Patterson to the use of Mary H. Elmer, Robert Patterson and Prank E. Patterson v. Caroline A. Hughes, now intermarried with William C. Sponsler. Scire facias sur mortgage. Before Fuller, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct T., 1900, No. 408, in verdict for plaintiff in case of Robert E. Patterson to the use of Mary H. Elmer, Robert Patterson and Prank E. Patterson v. Caroline A. Hughes, now intermarried with William C. Sponsler. Scire facias sur mortgage. Before Fuller, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in deducting from the verdict the sum of $2,100 with interest thereon.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Moschzisker,
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the same case in which we have just disposed of the appeal of the defendant. As there recited, in 1898, C. H. Houghton was indebted to General Robert E. Patterson upon six mortgages in the aggregate sum of $37,000 with interest. In March of that year the defendant gave her mortgage to General Patterson in the sum of $6,000 to cover accrued interest on these other mortgages. After-wards Houghton paid off his mortgages, and in the settlement then had he claimed that no consideration had been given for one of them, amounting…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hayes v. KlugeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914