Dauberman v. Hain

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 29, 1900

Dauberman v. Hain, 196 Pa. 435 (Pa. 1900)

46 A. 442; 1900 Pa. LEXIS 535

Brown, Cueiam, Dean, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Cueiam,

The judgment under which defendant derives title was regu*438lar in form and obtained in due course of procedure. There is no charge of collusion nor of fraud except as fraud may be inferentially set up in the allegation that the mortgage had been paid before the issue of the scire facias. But such payment was not admitted by the plaintiff in the scire facias. That was the issue in the case, the proceeding was adverse and the time to contest it was before judgment. It may have been unfortunate for appellant that circumstances prevented her from making such defense as she had at the proper time, but that was not the fault of the other party, and there is no ground on which the judgment can now be attacked.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Mortgage — Judgment on scire facias — Evidence. In an action of ejectment where it appears that the plaintiff had formerly-been the owner of the land which she had mortgaged, and that the defendants had bought the land from a purchaser at a sheriff’s sale in foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff will not be permitted to offer in evidence testimony to the effect that the mortgage had been paid, that the judgment had been entered against her for the want of a plea because she was too poor at the time to defend the case, and that the defendants had notice of these facts before they bought the property.