McCahill v. Maguire

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 30, 1899

McCahill v. Maguire, 193 Pa. 428 (Pa. 1899)

44 A. 499; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1139

Brown, Cubiam, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cubiam,

In the absence of any evidence establishing a superior equity in the appellant, McCahill and Goedeck, the plaintiffs in the writ on which the fund for distribution was raised, were entitled to the sum in controversy by virtue of the legal priority of their judgment. There was therefore no error in dismissing appellant’s exceptions and confirming the sheriff’s special return. Neither of the specifications of error requires discussion. They are both overruled.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant, Chas. J. Butterwick.

Reference

Full Case Name: William McCahill and Frederick Goedeck v. Margaret J. Maguire. Appeal of Charles J. Butterwick
Status: Published
Syllabus: Marshaling assets—Equity— Priority of judgment—Principal and sureties —License bond—Notation of liquor laws. On July 23, 1896, B. and D. each brought suit against M. to recover damages for a violation of the laws relating to selling and furnishing of vinous, spirituous, malt and brewed liquors. On October 7, 1897, M. confessed judgment in the penal sum of $4,200 in favor of the sureties on her license bond, to indemnify them against loss. On October 21, 1897, B. obtained a verdict in his suit for $6,838. On December 15, 1897, D. obtained a verdict in her suit for $3,250. On July 19, 1898, D. caused a judgment to be confessed on the license bond of M. against her and her sureties, on which there was collected from the sureties $2,100, which was applied to the judgments of B. and D. On September 9,1898, all the real estate and personal property of M. was sold, under the judgment confessed by M. to her sureties, for the sum of $3,160. Held, that the sureties were entitled, as against B., to the sum of $2,100 out of the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale.