Pease v. Doane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 199, Oct. T., 1906, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 91, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward E. Pease v. Samuel Doane and O. L. Haverly, terre-tenant and real owner. Scire facias sur mortgage. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 199, Oct. T., 1906, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 91, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward E. Pease v. Samuel Doane and O. L. Haverly, terre-tenant and real owner. Scire facias sur mortgage. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court charged in part as follows : [It has been held by the courts of this state that “ a mortgage does not necessarily merge or become extinct by being united in the same person with the fee ; it may be kept alive where such is the intention of the holder, or the intention or…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The doctrine of equitable merger has been often and clearly defined by our courts of last resort. We can therefore but restate it in the terms long since adopted and sanctioned by the highest authority and then determine how far, if at all, it is applicable to the facts of the present case.
“ Equity does not favor mergers; and, in law, mergers are said to be odious. It is generally, though not universally true, that merger depends on intention ; and it is only in those cases where it is perfectly indifferent to the party in whom the interests have united, whether the charge…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Moore v. Harrisburg BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Helmbold v. ManSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Wallace v. BlairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
- Bryar's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Dougherty v. JackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.