Simpson v. Murray

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Simpson v. Murray

2 Pa. 76, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 273

DecidedDecember 26, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pa. 76 (Simpson v. Murray) 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

Simpson v. Murray, 2 Pa. 76, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 273 (Pa. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Sergeant, J.

— Although, as is said in Ewing v. Barras, 4 Watts & Serg. 468, every mistake in filing a claim, however trivial, will not invalidate the lien, yet the building must be described substantially, so as to identify it. The creditor cannot claim against a building in one [77]*77public street, and then sell by his execution a building in another public street. Nothing but uncertainty and confusion could result if this were allowed. The object of the law, which is to give notice to the owner and others of an encumbrance on the realty, would be wholly defeated. The old acts of 17th March, 1806, and 21st March, 1808, under which this claim was filed, are not so particular, it is true, in their requisites of the ingredients of the claim, as the act of 16th of June, 1836 ; but still, they contemplate that the claim is to describe a building, and that the building against which the claim is filed is to be the object of the plaintiff’s pursuit. It would be taking too great a latitude, we think, to sanction the sale of a house in Pine street, below Eleventh street, under a claim against a house in Tenth street, below Pine ; nor could they be considered, in any legal contemplation, as the same building. Nor can the subsequent proceeding of revival and judgment on the scire facias be treated as constituting a new judgment in personam, under which the plaintiff might levy on and sell any real estate of the defendant. They are all merely continuances of the original suit, and profess to be so, and have that operation.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Sergeant, J.

— Although, as is said in Ewing v. Barras, 4 Watts & Serg. 468, every mistake in filing a claim, however trivial, will not invalidate the lien, yet the building must be described substantially, so as to identify it. The creditor cannot claim against a building in one [77]*77public street, and then sell by his execution a building in another public street. Nothing but uncertainty and confusion could result if this were allowed. The object of the law, which is to give notice to the owner and others of an encumbrance on the realty, would be wholly defeated. The old acts of 17th March, 1806, and 21st March, 1808, under which this claim was filed, are not so particular, it is true, in their requisites of the ingredients of the claim, as the act of 16th of June, 1836 ; but still, they contemplate that the claim is to describe a building, and that the building against which the claim is filed is to be the object of the plaintiff’s pursuit. It would be taking too great a latitude, we think, to sanction the sale of a house in Pine street, below Eleventh street, under a claim against a house in Tenth street, below Pine ; nor could they be considered, in any legal contemplation, as the same building. Nor can the subsequent proceeding of revival and judgment on the scire facias be treated as constituting a new judgment in personam, under which the plaintiff might levy on and sell any real estate of the defendant. They are all merely continuances of the original suit, and profess to be so, and have that operation.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pa. 76, 1845 Pa. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-murray-pa-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack