Patrick's Appeal

105 Pa. 356, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 107
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 14, 1884·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed February 25, 1884.

Per Curiam.

— On the facts found by the auditor there is no error in this decree of distribution. The rule is well settled that where fractional parts of the same mortgage debt, or of a judgment lien, are successively assigned to different persons, and the proceeds of the property bound thereby are insufficient to pay all of them, they take pro rata. Those first assigned are not entitled to priority of payment. Moore’s Appeal, 11 Norris, 309. We discover nothing in the facts of the present case to prevent the application of that rule. No question was raised before the auditor, nor in the court below, in regard to the amount of costs entitled to be paid out of the fund. It is too late to raise it here, and the evidence furnished is insufficient to consider it intelligently.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.

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

Patrick's Appeal, 105 Pa. 356, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 107 (Pa. 1884).

105 Pa. 356 (Patrick's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Land Title Bank and Tr. Co. v. Schenck
6 A.2d 878 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Agricultural Trust & Savings Company's Mortgage Pool Case
198 A. 16 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Barkley's Assigned Estate
112 A. 113 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)