Brown v. McCreight
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 233, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 1, on bill in equitjr. Bill in equity to cancel a mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 233, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 1, on bill in equitjr. Bill in equity to cancel a mortgage. Wilson, P. J., of the 36th judicial district, specially presiding, reported the following findings of fact and conclusions of law : 1. The mortgage in question was executed by William H. Brown and Charles Brown, April 19, 1892. 2. The consideration of the mortgage, so far as William H. Brown was concerned, was the stifling of a criminal prosecution against the plaintiffs and others. 3. The mortgage would not have been executed…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Fell,
Generally contracts compounding criminal offenses of any grade are void as against public policy, and no distinction in this respect is recognized between felonies and misdemeanors: Pearce v. Wilson, 111 Pa. 14. In this state the settlement of some classes of minor misdemeanors, the prosecution of which is not a matter of public interest, is permitted by statute. The ninth section of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 427, makes it lawful for the magistrate to discharge or the court to order a nolle prosequi, at the request of the prosecutor, where 'the charge or…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pearce v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Geier v. ShadeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Bickel's Executors v. Fasig's AdministratorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- New York Life Ins. v. NydesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1932