Williams v. Tearney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Stated. HUGH TEARNEY, the defendant in the above case, commenced a building on a lot in Walnut street on the 19th October, 1812, and finished it in August, 1814. Alexander ' o ' Napier, who did stone cutters work on the building, on the ^^ March, 1814, took a bond and warrant of attorney from the defendant, conditioned for the payment of 280 dollars, ... . . 1 J 7 (the amount of his bill,) within one year from the daté of his bond.
Read the full summary
Case Stated. HUGH TEARNEY, the defendant in the above case, commenced a building on a lot in Walnut street on the 19th October, 1812, and finished it in August, 1814. Alexander ' o ' Napier, who did stone cutters work on the building, on the ^^ March, 1814, took a bond and warrant of attorney from the defendant, conditioned for the payment of 280 dollars, ... . . 1 J 7 (the amount of his bill,) within one year from the daté of his bond. On the 31st March, 1814, a judgment was entered in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, on this bond, which was assigned to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J.
The only question the Court are now called on to decide, is whether the taking a judgment bond and entering a judgment on it, by a mechanic for materials and labour, in erecting a house in this city, is an action for the recovery of the debt or a claim filed', so as to preserve the lien on the building. It is not required, to give an opinion, whether the taking a bond with warrant of attorney, and judgment confessed on it, extinguishes the lien, — a matter which, when it comes in judgment before the Court, will require very grave consideration.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Noll v. SwinefordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Hern & Co. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1825
- Horbach v. Knox, Boggs & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847