Knaub v. Esseck

2 Watts 282
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1834·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Land was always sold subject to a mortgage conditioned for payment of' an indefinite number of annual instalments, depending for their continuance upon a life in being ; because these could not be valued and taken out of the purchase money. In respect to a mortgage given to secure the share of an intestate’s widow, any other rule would conflict with the act which directs her interest to remain charged on the land. As to the form of the action, it has always been held that an ejectment lies on a mortgage, because the act which provides a scire facias gives no remedy where the object is not to turn the land into money. The direction on both points, then, was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Knaub v. Esseck, 2 Watts 282 (Pa. 1834).

2 Watts 282 (Knaub v. Esseck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Waln v. Beaver
161 Pa. 605 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1894)
Youngman v. Elmira & Williamsport Railroad
65 Pa. 278 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)
Pace v. Chadderdon
4 Minn. 499 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1860)
Miller v. Musselman
6 Whart. 354 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1841)
Mentzer v. Menor
8 Watts 296 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1839)