Humboldt S. D. & T. Co. v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Humboldt S. D. & T. Co. v. Thompson

17 A. 663, 126 Pa. 434, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 894

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 13, 1889

DocketNo. 207

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A. 663 (Humboldt S. D. & T. Co. v. Thompson) 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

Humboldt S. D. & T. Co. v. Thompson, 17 A. 663, 126 Pa. 434, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 894 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It was not error to refuse the' issue asked for in this case. [437]*437The petition did not set out any question of fact as to which’, the issue was demanded. The averment that “ no money was. due to the said plaintiffs on said mortgage ” was too vague,, especially in a case which has been so thoroughly litigated as-this. Nor was there error in the rejection of the evidence referred to in the second assignment. The scire facias had been tried in the court below and had passed into judgment. It is true the terre-tenants (appellants) were not made parties to the scire facias, and might have made any defence in the court below that they could have made had they been warned by the scire facias. Such defence could not, however, be taken before the auditor. He was bound by the judgment, and if the appellants desired relief, the application should have been made to the court. We do not say they were entitled to it there, we only say they are not entitled to it here.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.

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

Per Curiam:

It was not error to refuse the' issue asked for in this case. [437]*437The petition did not set out any question of fact as to which’, the issue was demanded. The averment that “ no money was. due to the said plaintiffs on said mortgage ” was too vague,, especially in a case which has been so thoroughly litigated as-this. Nor was there error in the rejection of the evidence referred to in the second assignment. The scire facias had been tried in the court below and had passed into judgment. It is true the terre-tenants (appellants) were not made parties to the scire facias, and might have made any defence in the court below that they could have made had they been warned by the scire facias. Such defence could not, however, be taken before the auditor. He was bound by the judgment, and if the appellants desired relief, the application should have been made to the court. We do not say they were entitled to it there, we only say they are not entitled to it here.

The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A. 663, 126 Pa. 434, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humboldt-s-d-t-co-v-thompson-pa-1889.