Struthers v. Reese
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Warren county. Sept. 30. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of this court.. It may be proper to add, that the certificate of the surveyor-general was, “ that from an examination of the books of the land-office, it does not appear that patents have issued by the Commonwealth, for in-lots in the town of.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Warren county. Sept. 30. The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of this court.. It may be proper to add, that the certificate of the surveyor-general was, “ that from an examination of the books of the land-office, it does not appear that patents have issued by the Commonwealth, for in-lots in the town of. Warren, Nos. 486 and 487, &c., sold by the commissioners of sales to Ephraim Morrison, two-thirds of the purchase money not being paid,” and was under the seal of the land-office. • The evidence of Judge Hackney having been commissioner, was parol…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
This was a scire facias sur mortgage, brought by Martin Reese v. Thomas Struthers, for the recovery of $2400. Plea, payment, want of consideration, and set-off with leave, &c. The mortgage, after setting forth a debt of $2400, pay*131able in six months from date with interest, as the consideration or sum, the payment whereof was to be' secured, conveys to the said Reese, amongst other property, in-lots Nos. 486'and 487, in’the town of Warren, with the usual clause of defeasance.
Struthers then proved the payment of $1260; then gave in evidence a deed-from Martin Reese to him for the town lots…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ruggles v. GailySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828