Case Name: Knaub against Esseck
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 2 Watts 282
Docket Number: 
Parties: Knaub against Esseck.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Volume: 2
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Knaub against Esseck.
A sheriff’s sale does not divest the lien of a mortgage conditioned for the payment of an indefinite number of annual instalments depending for their continuance upon a life in being.
The action of ejectment is a proper mode of enforcing the payment of the instalments due upon such mortgage.
ERROR to the common pleas of Adams county.
This was an action of ejectment by Sophia Esseck against Jacob Knaub, and was founded on a mortgage conditioned for the payment of 14 pounds 19 shillings and 5 pence annually to the plaintiff during her natural life. The plaintiff claimed a verdict for the land, to be released on the payment of three instalments due before suit brought. The defendant gave in evidence the record of a former judgment in ejectment for the same land, by the same plaintiff, to be released on tbe payment of four previous instalments; also a judgment against the owner of the fee, on which the land had been levied and sold by the sheriff, and a deed made to the purchaser. This judgment was subsequent to the mortgage on which the suit was brought. The defendant below contended, that ejectment was not a proper remedy ; and that the sheriff’s sale divested the lien of the mortgage. But the court (Reed, president) ruled both points against the defendant; and the jury found for the plaintiff, to be released on the payment of the instalments due.
Fuller, for plaintiff in error, cited 2 Rawle 166.
Stevens, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Land was always sold subject to a mortgage conditioned for payment of' an indefinite number of annual instalments, depending for their continuance upon a life in being ; because these could not be valued and taken out of the purchase money. In respect to a mortgage given to secure the share of an intestate's widow, any other rule would conflict with the act which directs her interest to remain charged on the land. As to the form of the action, it has always been held that an ejectment lies on a mortgage, because the act which provides a scire facias gives no remedy where the object is not to turn the land into money. The direction on both points, then, was correct.
Judgment affirmed.