Burke v. Gummey
| Decision Date | 10 March 1864 |
| Citation | 49 Pa. 518 |
| Parties | Burke <I>versus</I> Gummey. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This case is ruled by Campbell v. Shrum, 3 Watts 60, as well as by the principles laid down in Blank v. German, 5 W. & S. 36, and in Woodward's Appeal, 2 Wright 322. We have no cases that are not reconcileable with the doctrine that one who purchases expressly subject to an encumbrance as between the vendor and himself makes the debt his own, and assumes to protect the vendor. Such assumption is in part or in whole the consideration of the conveyance to him. It would be strange were it not so. In this case Gummey sold to Burke for $1000 a lot subject to a mortgage for $1000, given by the vendor. Burke obtained the lot for $1000 less, because he took it expressly subject to the mortgage. If, now, he can cast the payment of the mortgage upon his vendor, he does not take the lot encumbered, for he compels the vendor to take off the encumbrance, and indirectly recovers the consideration which he has paid. It is manifest such was not the understanding of the parties. It is a rational deduction, from their language, and from the transaction, that the vendee undertook to protect the vendor against the debt that was secured by mortgage on the premises.
Clearly, the promise to Gummey to pay a debt due by Gummey, or to protect him against it, was not within the Statute of Frauds.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blood v. Crew Levick Co.
...is what value did the parties put upon the land. The legal presumption, as held by this court in Blank v. German, 5 W. & S. 36; Burke v. Gummey, 48 Pa. 518, and Metzgar's 71 Pa. 330, is that the mortgage debt is taken out of the consideration of the land. There is no necessity that a promis......
-
In re May's Estate
... ... protect the vendor; such assumption is in part or the whole ... consideration of the conveyance to him: Burke v ... Gummey, 49 Pa. 518; Moore's App., 88 Pa. 450; Old ... Colony Trust Co. v. Transit Co., 192 Pa. 596 ... The act ... of June 12, ... ...
-
In re Gill's Estate
...-- Benjamin N. McCormick, appellant, is entitled to recover the amount of $1,150, with interest, from the George A. Gill estate: Burke v. Gummey, 49 Pa. 518; Kirker Wylie, 207 Pa. 511; Moore's App., 88 Pa. 450; Merriman v. Moore, 90 Pa. 78; Blymire v. Boistle, 6 Watts 182; Howes v. Scott, 2......
-
Faulkner v. McHenry
...creates a covenant of indemnity to the grantor on the part of the grantee:" Taylor v. Mayer, 93 Pa. 42; Moore's App., 88 Pa. 450; Burke v. Gummey, 49 Pa. 518. principle, that the vendor has no right of action against the vendee to recover on an implied covenant in a deed containing the "und......