Miller v. Preston
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 73, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, William Miller, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1886, No. 632, refusing to strike off the entry of satisfaction of a judgment against defendant, Wm. H. Preston. Rule to strike off entry of satisfaction of judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 73, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, William Miller, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1886, No. 632, refusing to strike off the entry of satisfaction of a judgment against defendant, Wm. H. Preston. Rule to strike off entry of satisfaction of judgment. From the depositions in support of the rule it appeared that, in 1886, Thomas N. Allison, a conveyancer and real estate broker, acted as the agent of plaintiff in lending to defendant $350, which was secured by a judgment note immediately entered up. Defendant paid interest on the note to Allison, and did not know…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think the court below was right in refusing to strike off the entry of satisfaction of the judgment. The judgment had been satisfied by a reputable member of the bar after having entered an appearance for the plaintiff. After the judgment had been so satisfied, and upon the faith of it, a mortgage loan was made upon the property which had been bound by the judgment. All this appears to have been done in entire good faith. The money due upon the -judgment was received by Mr. James P. Dolman, the attorney who entered the satisfaction, and was paid over by him in good faith to Mr.…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Commonwealth ex rel. Paylor v. CavellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- City Deposit Bank & Trust Co. v. ZoppaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Goll v. ZieglerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.