The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-04

only is Il a general doctrine of law That the iudg-
mster cannot be Inquired into in collSters pfoceed
ing Ing except for fsnd In The manner Of obtaining the
IRE specially applicable 70 judgments upon sore acas
is &R' sio the assignee OF a morteaee having ob,
.oined tanned Judgment agapst the mortgagor and teIre
come the purchaser of the premises at the sherrs
offered on the trial 70 prove that the sad been
seia 10 be 6ut his evidence %ss
z = 2Sl which was sjsctmsnt BY n ortgagee who
not permitted TO show tnat the seirs faeeas had not
served nor that the mortgage money for which
In, In Casey vs.; Lstimer IS. q r. 2ll. we have the
lOunuso upon Two MINUS TO successive scre iaciases
eiectment. The offer there was to oU show that the
c was ~ possession Of the premises when the
sona service but said this Court II the Judgment of
have been reversed; writ OF error but remaining
int. IN full force that Court cannot now, in;
= exist. The act of WTSn i7C5 which "iISSSS gives
nhHS but IN practice they are considered equivalent
4 y " garniShmemt OF return OF sctTc fcct by the
mOrtEagor, dead before the first sctrc JacGs issued
and well secured after two ntis and Judgment there.
upon.
elusive effect Of the proceedings upon mortgages under
the act of l7o5 The 5cre Jdcqs is further proceed
@ gagor m or @ others claiming under him. which entities
or its equivalent which two minis are and
for the rest 1t is a proceeding in rem
the pledge into money. And the effect Of the pro.
ceeGng says the act shall be that the purchaser shall
and may hold and enjoy the lands, with their appur
for such estate estates they were sold
benefit Of redemption, aud all other incumbrances
made made or suffered by the mortgagors or their
AGAINST the morigagOr. or his heirs, execn-
When followed out to sale. is to extnguish the
equity OF redempon and TO transfer to the purchaser
the mortgage. And this transfer, be 1t observed, is
made by the Jugdment and the sale thereon and not
then, that the mortgage was null and void or tor
transfer? The inadequacy OF the mortgage might
well have been argued by the suit by Scre ydcGs but
questioned Judgment The mortgage is merged into 1t,
These proceedings upon mortgages under the act of
1905 are to be distinguished from judgments bond
hue vs. Scott wharton, 3O9 and of Caldwell VS. Wal
teIs, H. 20, and also from cases OF which Knox vs.
These were proeesdings purely n per'qSG@, where
Walters the purchaser had notice of the disability
but here the proceeding was principally IN rem and
sued. Mary Ann Coleman WAS the mortgager, and
woman when she made the mortgage. She was properly
sued because she was the mortgagOr The process
nthiis was to subject her to Shers sale AS to
this record she is Mary Ann Coleman stil-unmarried
Warden was made alive for the purposes of their writ
Would have made the death n he one on hs nsancg S
the marriage IN IN me 0theT an n5aYSa6le defect but
WITHOUT STANDS as IL was rendered,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT-Judge
chinery, lin which John McCullen was claimant
Before reported VERDICT for claiman ,,op,,
defendants charged with keeping an Illicit disu
iery' M thaI Is t Oh on e 1i "nouV having
COURT Of QUARTER ESSIoNs-Allison, p. ].
-Deserton cases were heard in the old courtroom
CITY vs. Robert SFeen Es Ordered t9 pay 50 per week
City VS.: Thomas Copyers,, ordered to pay s. per
cny Es HSH@R F ConHoN srS6se Psssd
and Pierce.-Motons 1or new trials were argued this
iNSrIUjRTsT COURT OF QUARTER RsEssIoNs.-Judge Ludlow.
As might have been expected the new Court House
was filled in those parts of the that intended
for spectators and witnesses and the bar, literally
entered with smile of satisfaction, showing plainly
that he appreciated the change from the old Quarter
Before proceeding with the business Judge Ludlow
e e had be been 10 G ens
preserve strict order throughout the room.
THE FIRST CASE OF AN ACoUIrTAL.
UJames c. McElroy and Thomas McManus, were ac-
Quilted off charge OF the larceny Of ham belonging
to Sellers & CO. The Two boys W9ea arTagned E d plead
the District Attorney, saying tnat the prosecutors had
ssanted submitted Mite the BIZ without evidence The
boys were not seen to commit the THEFT, but were
Mary McGinnis was ch=rGed with the larceny Of
belonging to Patrick McGinnis. The defend
grocery store in Melvin street. and did very pretty
heat little businness. Mr. McGinis an old gentleman,
was good customer OF The grocery store He got
his groceries from her, and would by weekly install
| mants give her money, until finally he had placed
| IN her hands tl62 But he was still in
| RED Mr.. McGinnis SON. and the old
gentleman, thinking the grocer had also married in
the family, said that all in the family, he
should not be charged for his and therefore
! demanded his money back again But the money was
! gone The lady had considered that the money was
Sad for the goods she had let the old gentleman have
and as her she had used as her business plea
sure required But the prosecution said he did not
the defendants having paid for every item OF goods
| he received 1t. On trial.