Cook v. Berry

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 30, 1899

Cook v. Berry, 193 Pa. 377 (Pa. 1899)

44 A. 771; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1131

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The decree from which this appeal is taken was fully warranted by facts correctly found by the trial judge.

*389The first eight specifications charge error in the findings of fact therein respectively recited. The subjects of complaint in the remaining specifications are the conclusions of law drawn from the facts thus found. A careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence has satisfied us that none of said specifications should be sustained. The substantial correctness of the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law is so fully vindicated in the opinion of its learned president that it is unnecessary for us to add anything thereto. The decree is therefore affirmed on his opinion and the appeal is dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: J. V. H. Cook, Rowley Cook and S. C. Cook v. George A. Berry and I. N. Patterson
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Deed—Mortgage—Principal and surety. ' ' When real properiy has been conveyed subject to a mortgage, with a condition in the deed requiring the grantee to assume payment of the mortgage, such grantee by the acceptance of the deed impliedly covenants to pay the mortgage debt, and thus becomes personally liable to the mortgagee for such payment. He takes upon himself the burden of the debt secured by the mortgage, and as between him and his grantor he becomes principal, and the latter a surety for the payment of the debt. A corporation which owed M. $6,000, for which C.’s liability as surety was evidenced by a bond andmortgage, borrowed the money from B., with which it paid the bond, giving P., one of its stockholders, as surety for the loan, and procuring an assignment of the bond and mortgage as further security. The corporation became insolvent, and P. was compelled to pay B. part of this loan. Held, that the payment of the debt to M. was a full discharge of the bond and mortgage and a release of C., and that, therefore, P. had no redress from C., personally, and no right to a decree that the mortgage should be kept alive for his benefit.