Hutchison v. Gill

91 Pa. 253, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 331
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 20, 1879·No. No. 73·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

When a mortgagor, at the same time that he executes a mortgage, delivers to the mortgagee a writing, certifying that he has no defence or defalcation, it is in effect an agreement that the mortgagee shall negotiate the mortgage. It is an acknowledgment that he has received full consideration. It is indeed most usual to execute such writings when no consideration has been received, and the sole object of the mortgage is to raise money by the sale of it. It would be in the highest degree inequitable to allow the mortgagor to set up that there was fraud in obtaining the mortgage, or in a misappropriation by the mortgagee of the money raised by the sale. It is unnecessary to say what would be the effect of actual fraud in procuring the “ no defence” paper. In this case there was no evidence of such fraud.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hutchison v. Gill, 91 Pa. 253, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 331 (Pa. 1879).

91 Pa. 253 (Hutchison v. Gill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States National Bank v. Drabish
144 A.2d 640 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Cooper v. Lucas Et Ux.
33 A.2d 466 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Fort Pitt Real Est. v. Schaefer Et Ux.
96 Pa. Super. 497 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Lester Bros. ex rel. First National Bank of Saegertown v. Shoop
2 Pa. D. & C. 762 (Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Murphy v. Green
48 Pa. Super. 1 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Wetzel v. Linnard
15 Pa. Super. 503 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Howie v. Lewis
14 Pa. Super. 232 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)