History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cross v. Stahlman
43 Pa. 129
Pa.
1862
Check Treatment

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Read, J.

This case was virtually decided in The Commonwealth v. Wilson, 10 Casey 63, where we held that a judgment on a bond secured by mortgage is not payable out of the proceeds of a sheriff’s sale of the mortgaged premises under a junior judgment. In that case the defendants in this suit and *134the mortgagors recovered from Sheriff Wilson, on his official bond, the amount paid by them to J. & J. Milliken, for their judgment against them, and upon which a testatum fi. fa. was issued to Centre county, and levied upon their personal property. The ground of this recovery was that, upon a sale of these mortgaged premises, under this junior judgment, the sheriff, instead of paying this judgment, had paid the amount in his hands to the holder of the prior mortgage on account of a judgment on one of the bonds secured by it, and had taken from him a refunding receipt. Sheriff Wilson paid the amount recovered from him, and he was repaid by the holder of the mortgage, which, of course, left so much still due on the mortgage which' had never been satisfied.

In the present suit on this mortgage the plaintiffs below have recovered the amount thus remaining due on it, being the amount paid by them to Sheriff Wilson, with interest. In this we can discover no error, and, therefore,

The judgment is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Cross v. Stahlman
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jun 26, 1862
Citation: 43 Pa. 129
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.