Schweyer ex rel. Kline v. Walbert

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Schweyer ex rel. Kline v. Walbert, 190 Pa. 334 (Pa. 1899)
42 A. 694; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1026
Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Stebjsett

Schweyer ex rel. Kline v. Walbert

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Our examination of the evidence in support of the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and the defendant let into a defense has satisfied us that it was clearly sufficient to justify the decree making the rule absolute, etc. *341The case was fully considered and so satisfactorily disposed of by the court below that further comment is unnecessary.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Reference

Full Case Name
Daniel H. Schweyer and Edwin DeLong to the use of Annie DeLong Kline v. Sarah Walbert and David Walbert
Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Judgment — Opening judgment — Bond and mortgage — Parol evidence to vary written instrument. A general liability upon a bond accompanying a mortgage given for purchase money of real estate may be restricted by proof of a contemporaneous oral agreement but for which the property would not have been boughs nor the instrument in question executed, and by virtue of which there was to be no personal liability upon it, but the amount thereof was to be collectible alone out oí the property conveyed. Where a woman executes an agreement to purchase land and covenants to give “ a mortgage on the said premises,” and subsequently executes a mortgage and a bond without any restriction as to liability, and judgment is entered upon the bond, the judgment will be opened where the defendant testifies that she was induced to sign the bond, only upon a parol agreement that her liability should be restricted to the land purchased.