Fox v. Foster ex rel. Benedict
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Crawford" county. Sept. 29. The defendant in error issued a sci. fa. to revive a judgment in ejectment, entered generally against Fox, without specification of any amount, which judgment was to enforce the payment of purchase money due under articles of agreement, that debt having been assigned to Benedict.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Crawford" county. Sept. 29. The defendant in error issued a sci. fa. to revive a judgment in ejectment, entered generally against Fox, without specification of any amount, which judgment was to enforce the payment of purchase money due under articles of agreement, that debt having been assigned to Benedict. The instrument by which it was assigned was a notice put up at á sheriff’s" sale of the land to Stratton under a judgment against Fox, stating the amount of the purchase money “ assigned to Benedict” claimed by the plaintiff below as due on his judgment,…
1Opinion of the Court
Coulter, J.,
(after stating the first exception.)—It is difficult to imagine any valid reason why the evidence ought not to have been admitted. The original judgment on which the present scire facias issued, was a general judgment in favour of the plaintiff, and did not specify the amount of purchase money due. It was therefore peculiarly proper, and conducive to'the ends of justice, for the plaintiff to give notice of the actual balance due, and also that he retained the legal title. Bidders would thus be all placed on a footing of equality, and enabled to bid with an exact knowledge of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ridgely v. DobsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Foster v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Monongahela Natural Gas Co. v. Ellwood Natural Gas & Oil Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910