Bergdoll v. Sopp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 525, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Emma C. Bergdoll v. Ernest Sopp. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due on a mortgage. Before Davis, J. See 227 Pa. 363; From the record it appeared that on or about September 10, 1903, the son of the defendant borrowed $11,000 from the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 63, Jan. T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 525, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Emma C. Bergdoll v. Ernest Sopp. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due on a mortgage. Before Davis, J. See 227 Pa. 363; From the record it appeared that on or about September 10, 1903, the son of the defendant borrowed $11,000 from the plaintiff. The latter made the loan on condition that the defendant would execute the mortgage in suit as collateral security to her. Subsequently the son’s indebtedness to the plaintiff was increased, and at the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potteb,
When this case was here before (227 Pa. 363), we decided that there was evidence upon the record, by a witness named Borasky, which, if believed, would justify a finding that the $8,000, mortgage in suit had been “given as a general indemnity against any loss on the entire $11,000 indebtedness.” A judgment for the defendant was reversed with a venire facias de novo that the case might be submitted to a jury to determine whether the mortgage was “collateral for every dollar of the $11,000” or simply for $8,000 of such indebtedness. This witness did not appear at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bergdoll v. SoppSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brandenberg v. TirinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
- Mendiola v. KijakaziDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2022