Brackenbridge v. Cummings
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 101, April T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. Warren Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 13, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of N. B. Brackenbridge, Assignee of A. H. McKelvy, v. Lewis Cummings, Terre-tenant. Scire facias sur mortgage. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 101, April T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. Warren Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 13, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of N. B. Brackenbridge, Assignee of A. H. McKelvy, v. Lewis Cummings, Terre-tenant. Scire facias sur mortgage. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Lewis Cummings filed an affidavit of defense in which he averred as follows: That he purchased the interest in said leasehold, described in the mortgage upon which the above writ of scire facias was issued, of the Warren Savings.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter,
The plaintiff is an assignee of a mortgage. The defendant is a terre-tenant. The defense set up is that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of certain promissory notes of the mortgagor; that all of them are paid but two; that recovery upon the two is barred by limitation and that the mortgage is *68therefore unenforceable. By its terms the mortgage was given not to secure a right of recovery on the promissory notes, but the payment of the debt of which the notes were the evidence. The mortgage stipulates that it is given “ as well for and in consideration of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hulbert v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Hartranft's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Fleming v. ParrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
- McCartney ex rel. First National Bank v. KippSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Ayres v. WattsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Priester v. MillemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Hauser Holdings v. The Force Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- National Loan Investors v. Gold, B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020