Solms v. McCulloch
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Centre. This was a scire facias upon a mortgage, to the use of Lyon, Shorb & Co., against McCulloch, Dickson, and McNamara, to which the Mechanics’ Bank of Philadelphia and Milliken appeared and defended as terre-tenants. The mortgage was dated November 12, 1835, and was recorded on the 23d, but was acknowledged on the 9th of the preceding month.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Centre. This was a scire facias upon a mortgage, to the use of Lyon, Shorb & Co., against McCulloch, Dickson, and McNamara, to which the Mechanics’ Bank of Philadelphia and Milliken appeared and defended as terre-tenants. The mortgage was dated November 12, 1835, and was recorded on the 23d, but was acknowledged on the 9th of the preceding month. This was rejected by the court, on the ground that the instrument offered in evidence had never been recorded, and was the first exception. The plaintiffs then proved the execution of the mortgage, to which Milliken…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
If the terre-tenants, who are permitted to defend pro interesse sico, had either actual or constructive notice of the mortgage, they stand in the same situation with the mortgagors, and accordingly take the land purchased at the sheriff’s sale, subject to the lien of the mortgage. The court below, however, as we understood them, being of opinion that the mortgage was defectively registered, and having assumed that there w^s no evidence of actual notice, directed the jury to find for the defendants.
This raises two questions. 1st. Was the mortgage defectively registered, or in other words had…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bellas v. LloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Norman v. NormanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1796
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kilian v. Allegheny County DistributorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Prouty v. MarshallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908