Dauberman v. Hain

46 A. 442, 196 Pa. 435, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 535
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 29, 1900·No. Appeal, No. 11·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Cueiam,

The judgment under which defendant derives title was regu[438]*438lar in form and obtained in due course of procedure. There is no charge of collusion nor of fraud except as fraud may be inferentially set up in the allegation that the mortgage had been paid before the issue of the scire facias. But such payment was not admitted by the plaintiff in the scire facias. That was the issue in the case, the proceeding was adverse and the time to contest it was before judgment. It may have been unfortunate for appellant that circumstances prevented her from making such defense as she had at the proper time, but that was not the fault of the other party, and there is no ground on which the judgment can now be attacked.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Dauberman v. Hain, 46 A. 442, 196 Pa. 435, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 535 (Pa. 1900).

46 A. 442 (Dauberman v. Hain) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Gallagher
185 A.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Miners Sav. Bank of Pittston, Pa. v. United States
110 F. Supp. 563 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)
Boulton v. Starck
85 A.2d 17 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Moeller v. Washington County
44 A.2d 252 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)