Allen ex rel. Pepperday v. Oxnard

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Allen ex rel. Pepperday v. Oxnard

25 A. 568, 152 Pa. 621, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1028

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 3, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 159

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 25 A. 568 (Allen ex rel. Pepperday v. Oxnard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen ex rel. Pepperday v. Oxnard, 25 A. 568, 152 Pa. 621, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1028 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We find no error in distributing the money to the mechanics’ liens. The mortgage in favor of J. J. Pepperday was not filed until more than sixty days from its execution, and after the mechanics’ liens had attached. This answers the first and second specifications of error. The third does not conform to the rules of court and will not be considered. The fourth specification alleges that the court below erred in allowing interest on the liens to the day of distribution. This was doubtless an oversight, and would have been corrected in the court below had the attention of the learned judge been called to it. The interest should have been allowed only to time of sale.

With this modification the decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

We find no error in distributing the money to the mechanics’ liens. The mortgage in favor of J. J. Pepperday was not filed until more than sixty days from its execution, and after the mechanics’ liens had attached. This answers the first and second specifications of error. The third does not conform to the rules of court and will not be considered. The fourth specification alleges that the court below erred in allowing interest on the liens to the day of distribution. This was doubtless an oversight, and would have been corrected in the court below had the attention of the learned judge been called to it. The interest should have been allowed only to time of sale.

With this modification the decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 568, 152 Pa. 621, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-ex-rel-pepperday-v-oxnard-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack