Busch v. Groswith
Busch v. Groswith
Opinion of the Court
The only error complained of is in discharging the rule to set aside the alias fieri facias issued on a judgment which appears to have been regularly entered on bond and warrant of attorney, and remains of record unopened and unsatisfied. Whatever doubt, if any, may have existed, prior to February 10, 1893, as to the plaintiff’s right to proceed upon the bond, was removed on that day, when the payment on account of costs, principal and interest was made. In the receipt, then given by plaintiff’s attorney, it is stipulated as follows: “No proceedings to be taken for sixty days on the said mortgages and no proceedings against said real estate to be taken on the judgment entered on the accompanying bonds. Proceedings may be had, however, against
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.