Whelan v. Hill
This text of 2 Whart. 118 (Whelan v. Hill) 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.
Opinion
The action before the alderman, was between the same parties, and essentially for the same cause of action. It was brought to enforce the defendant’s personal liability on-.the, original contract, which was adjudged to have been discharged, had it ever existed ,• and if the debt was discharged, the lien which secured it, being an accessary, was discharged also. A judgment for the defendant in an action on a bond secured by a mortgage, would discharge the mortgage, and why not discharge the lien here ? The point of indebtedness was directly decided by the alderman; and it can never be drawn in question again, between the same parties or their privies.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Whart. 118, 1837 Pa. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whelan-v-hill-pa-1837.