History
  • No items yet
midpage
Connelly v. Nedrow
6 Watts 451
Pa.
1837
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

It is settled, that the surplus bond is indispensable; and there is a conclusive reason why a deposit of money should not be taken as a substitute for it. By the act of 1804, it is directed to be a lien on the land, for which the personal security of the treasurer is not an equivalent. Even his sureties would be irresponsible for what would certainly be an unofficial act; for, though the second section of the act of the 13th of March 1815, provides that the treasurer, for the time being, when consummating a sale made by a predecessor, shall execute the deed ā€œ upon the full discharge and payment of the money or price for which the lands were sold,ā€ it is evident the direction relates to the taxes and costs, and not to the case of a surplus which was not thought of. The clause was evidently penned, by one who had not the precedent provision before him; for it surely could not have been *453meant to give the former owner a lien, under a deed made by the officer who conducted the sale, and personal security, under a deed made by his successor; and as there is no imaginable motive for such a difference, it is not to be intended,

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Connelly v. Nedrow
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Sep 15, 1837
Citation: 6 Watts 451
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.