Dubbs v. Finley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dubbs v. Finley

2 Pa. 397, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 365

DecidedApril 30, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pa. 397 (Dubbs v. Finley) 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

Dubbs v. Finley, 2 Pa. 397, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 365 (Pa. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Sergeant, J.

— This case differs from United States v. Mertz, 2 Watts, 406, on which the court below ruled it. For here the grantee, when he took the property, did so expressly on his written assumption of the proportional part of the mortgage debt, and also stipulated by the same instrument, that it should be subject to such proportional part, amounting to the sum of $2040, which he assumed thereby and agreed to pay. This undertaking would make him liable for the amount in a proceeding against him by Hippie. Whether covenant would be the proper form of action, where it appears that he had not executed the deed, but was a party to it and held under the conveyance, it is unnecessary to decide; for if covenant would not lie, an action on the case would, and the agreement in writing would be sufficient evidence. In United States v. Mertz there was no agreement to pay the encumbrances.

Judgment reversed, and venire facias de novo awarded.

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

Sergeant, J.

— This case differs from United States v. Mertz, 2 Watts, 406, on which the court below ruled it. For here the grantee, when he took the property, did so expressly on his written assumption of the proportional part of the mortgage debt, and also stipulated by the same instrument, that it should be subject to such proportional part, amounting to the sum of $2040, which he assumed thereby and agreed to pay. This undertaking would make him liable for the amount in a proceeding against him by Hippie. Whether covenant would be the proper form of action, where it appears that he had not executed the deed, but was a party to it and held under the conveyance, it is unnecessary to decide; for if covenant would not lie, an action on the case would, and the agreement in writing would be sufficient evidence. In United States v. Mertz there was no agreement to pay the encumbrances.

Judgment reversed, and venire facias de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pa. 397, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubbs-v-finley-pa-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack