Opinion
September 10, 1958.
November 14, 1958.
Practice — Judgments — Amount due in dispute — Stay of execution — Mortgages — Opening judgment — Circumstances.
1. Where it appeared that a judgment, entered on a bond accompanying a mortgage on premises, was marked to the use of D, and then later marked to the use of plaintiff in the instant proceeding, following which execution was issued; that a stay of execution was sought by P, which averred that it was plaintiff in a pending equity action, in which it requested as relief that D, the then holder of the bond and mortgage, assign the same to petitioner, because the bond had been fully paid with petitioner's funds; that use plaintiff admitted the other allegations of the petition but averred that certain sums were still due D and that she had bought the judgment and mortgage for value and without notice of any infirmity; and that the court below, holding that it was not material whether or not use plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value, and that since the amount due on the judgment was in dispute and that question was involved in the pending equity proceedings, the execution should be stayed pending the outcome of the equity action, granted the petition; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
2. Where it appeared that opening of the judgment was sought by G, who alleged that she had purchased the premises in question at a sheriff's sale, that P had taken a mortgage in a specified sum, out of which payment had been made to D to liquidate the original mortgage; that use plaintiff denied that payment had been made from the money put up by P but admitted that D had been paid, and further alleged that use plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value; and that the court below, holding that it was not material whether or not use plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value, and that the judgment should be opened to determine if the payments were a proper credit against the judgment, granted G's petition; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 320 and 321, Oct. T., 1958, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1954, No. 175, in case of Unity Building and Loan Association, to the use of Martin N. Dorfman, to the use of Ida Tonuci, v. George Scott et al. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 14 Pa. D. C. 2d 515.
Proceeding upon petitions and rules to open judgment entered upon a written warrant and for stay of execution.
Orders entered making rules absolute, opinion by BOK, P.J. Use-plaintiff appealed.
Samuel Melnick, for appellant.
Franklin H. Spitzer, Jr., with him Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for appellee.
Leslie P. Hill, for appellee.
Argued September 10, 1958.
Judgment affirmed on the opinion of President Judge BOK of the court below, 14 Pa. D. C. 2d 515.