McQuaide v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ekrok to the Common Pleas of Indiana county. This was a feigned issue, directed by the court under the Act of 16th June 1836, in which James G. McQuaide, F. M. Kinter, and Charles Gompers, doing business as McQuaide, Kinter & Co., were made plaintiffs, and Alexander M. Stewart and Jane Taylor were defendants, to try certain disputed facts connected with the distribution of the money arising from the sheriff’s sale nf the real éstate of Alexander Taylor.
Read the full summary
Ekrok to the Common Pleas of Indiana county. This was a feigned issue, directed by the court under the Act of 16th June 1836, in which James G. McQuaide, F. M. Kinter, and Charles Gompers, doing business as McQuaide, Kinter & Co., were made plaintiffs, and Alexander M. Stewart and Jane Taylor were defendants, to try certain disputed facts connected with the distribution of the money arising from the sheriff’s sale nf the real éstate of Alexander Taylor. Prior to this sale Taylor was the owner of in-lot No. 61, in the borough of Indiana, and on the 13th day of January 1860, entered into a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Thompson, J.
— The learned judge of the Common Pleas charged that the rent proposed to be defalked against the mechanic’s lien, being reserved in the same instrument from which the lien springs, it was consequently in the same transaction, and therefore, regardless of other considerations, should be allowed to extinguish pro tanto. We think this reason was insufficient, in view of the circumstances. There are, undoubtedly, cases in which the transaction is so entirely a unit, that it is most most just and proper, when litigation arises, that matters…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Piatt v. St. Clair's HeirsOhio Supreme Court · 1833
- Hubler v. TamneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. CookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Greenberg v. Koegler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1947