Hughes v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 326, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from order of C. P. Blair Co., June T., 1895, No. 174, discharging rule for subrogation. Rule for subrogation and satisfaction. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
Judgment being recovered by the sheriff against the appellant as a defaulting bidder, for the deficiency at a second sale of the real estate of James Judge, the appellant filed a petition setting- forth that the action was brought and the judgment would inure entirely to the benefit of Mrs. Judge, the widow of the former owner; that Mrs. Judge was not only the widow, but a creditor of her husband’s estate, under such circumstances as made her the equitable owner of the present judgment, and that Mrs. Judge was indebted to the petitioner, defendant, so *368that it…
2Cited by10 opinions
- McGeehan v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Hardoncourt v. North Penn Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- McGeehan v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Kurzaji v. Warner and BowmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Husvar v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.