Whitehead v. Purnell
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a levari facias on a judgment on a younger mortgage- The terre tenants obtained this rule to show cause. The title to the premises sold was as follows: “ John Whitehead & Jos. Broadbent, ) Deed dated Jan. 4,1833. to > Recorded A. M. No, 63, Hiram Purnell. ) p. 247. For a large lot 55 by 180 feet.” “ Purnell & Wife, h Deed dated December 20,1837. Acknow-to > ledged December 30, 1837, for a part, not Jacob Freas. ) recorded.”
Read the full summary
THIS was a levari facias on a judgment on a younger mortgage- The terre tenants obtained this rule to show cause. The title to the premises sold was as follows: “ John Whitehead & Jos. Broadbent, ) Deed dated Jan. 4,1833. to > Recorded A. M. No, 63, Hiram Purnell. ) p. 247. For a large lot 55 by 180 feet.” “ Purnell & Wife, h Deed dated December 20,1837. Acknow-to > ledged December 30, 1837, for a part, not Jacob Freas. ) recorded.” “ Purnell & Wife, \ Deed dated December 20,1837. Acknow-to > ledged December 30, 1837, for a part, re-Jacob Ruth. ) corded September 11, 1839.” The incumbrances…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
The question here really is, whether a sale under a younger mortgage destroys a prior lien by judgment, although that judgment is entered on a bond accompanying an elder mortgage. Had there been no judgment, the lien of the mortgage would have remained; it would not have been paid out of the proceeds, and the purchaser would have taken the property subject to it, under the act of 6th April, 1830. (Stroud’s Purd. tit Execution.) The argument that the entry of the judgment on the bond does not alter the case, is not tenable.
Rule discharged.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859