Case ID: pa-super_32/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Haspel v. O’Brien, Appellant.
    November 19, 1906 :
    
      Municipal liens — Mortgages—Priority of lien — Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 364.
    Under the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 364, municipal liens have no priority over mortgages created prior to the passage of the act.
    Argued Oct. 12, 1906.
    Appeal, No. 104, Oct. T., 1906, by-defendant, from order of C. P. Ño. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 1,214, making absolute rule to pay over money in case of Lewis A. Haspel, Receiver of the United Building and Loan Association of Philadelphia, v. Daniel O’Brien, Mortgagor, Wilson H. Brown, Sheriff, and the City of Philadelphia.
    Before Rice, P. J., Poetes,, Henderson, Morrison, Oready, Head and Beaveb, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule upon the sheriff to pay over money.
    From the record it appeared that on a scire facias sur mortgage the mortgaged premises were sold, and the sheriff retained out of the purchase money a sum sufficient to cover tax claims and water rent due to the city of Philadelphia. The mortgage was created in September 24, 1892. The taxes and water rent were for the years 1905 and 1906. Plaintiff took a rule on the sheriff to show cause why the money retained by him should not be paid to the plaintiff. This rule was made absolute.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      John Gr. Johnson, with him Mayne B. Longstreth, James Alcorn and John L. Kinsey, for appellants.
    
      Wayne P. Rarnbo, with him Albert L. Lewis and Ormond Bambo, for appellee.
   Pee Curiam,

A reconsideration of the substantial question raised on these appeals, with the aid of the argument of the appellant’s counsel, has failed to convince us that our rulings in Martin v. Greenwood, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, and Oil City B. & L. Assn. v. Shanfelter, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 251, were erroneous, and ought to be overruled. Nor can we see that any useful purpose would be served by .further discussion of the question on our part.

The order appealed from in each of the foregoing cases is affirmed at the appellant’s costs.