Zimmerman v. Briggans
This text of 5 Watts 186 (Zimmerman v. Briggans) 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
Sole v. Crompton is in point, that a defendant’s name in a judgment, is not amendable to affect a purchaser; and why should it be amendable to affect a subsequent incumbrancer ? The court, however, did amend it, and, in doing so, transcended their legitimate power; but they took care, in making distribution, to give it no effect which it had not originally. It is immaterial that the subsequent creditors were apprized of the blunder when they took their judgments. They were entitled to notice of record ; and as no part of a judgment can rest in parol, they were properly preferred.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Watts 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-briggans-pa-1836.