Patrick's Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Patrick's Appeal

105 Pa. 356, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 14, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 Pa. 356 (Patrick's Appeal) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 Pa. 356, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricks-appeal-pa-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack