In re Solomon
Decision Date | 31 July 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 13753.,13753. |
Citation | 40 F. Supp. 62 |
Parties | In re SOLOMON. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Edmund R. Finegan, of Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff petitioners.
P. Morton Rothberg and Alexander Solo, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant trustee.
The facts in this case are stated clearly and succinctly by the referee in his opinion as follows:
The specific question before the court is whether the bankrupt's one-half undivided interest in the premises 2052 Fairmount Avenue is subject to the above-mentioned first mortgage in the sum of $10,000.
I am of the opinion that the referee was in error in denying the relief sought by the mortgagee.
The case at bar is governed by the principles of "estoppel by deed" of which the following is a clear statement:
19 American Jurisprudence 619, § 21.
The doctrine of estoppel by deed, particularly as it relates to the law of the State of Pennsylvania, was exhaustively considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gibson v. Lyon, 115 U.S. 439, 6 S.Ct. 129, 133, 29 L.Ed. 440, wherein the court states:
In * * *"Purman v. Smith, 126 Pa.Super. 234, 237, 191 A. 65, 66, the plaintiff attacked the mortgage which he created as invalid. The court held: "His sale of the real estate subject to the mortgage was an act of ratification and the grantee took the real estate subject to the mortgage, although assuming no personal liability to any one but her grantor."
See, also, Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County Street Railway Co., 218 Mass. 367, 105 N.E. 1064 ( ), and Fair Oaks Building & Loan Association v. Kahler, 320 Pa. 245, 181 A. 779, 111 A.L.R. 1108; American Waterworks Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 73 F. 956; Cheffee v. Geageah, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 253 Mass. 586, 149 N.E. 620.
In American Waterworks Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., supra 73 F. 961, it was held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glacier County v. Frisbee
... ... acres of the land covered by the patent in fee issued to her, ... accepted the fee patent as a whole, or was her act in selling ... the 80 acres acceptance of the fee patent only as to such 80 ... acres. On this question it was said in In re Solomon, ... E.D.Pa. 1941, 40 F.Supp. 62, 63, quoting from 19 Am.Jur ... 619, sec. 21: 'A person cannot claim under an instrument ... without confirming it. He must found his claim on the whole, ... and cannot adopt that feature or operation which makes in his ... favor, and at the same time ... ...
-
Glacier Cnty. v. Frisbee
...her act in selling the 80 acres acceptance of the fee patent only as to such 80 acres. On this question it was said in In re Solomon, E.D.Pa.1941, 40 F.Supp. 62, 63, quoting from 19 Am.Jur. 619, sec. 21: ‘A person cannot claim under an instrument without confirming it. He must found his cla......
-
In re Webb
...least, reckless or grossly negligent. The application of estoppel against the Debtor here is similar to that worked in In re Solomon, 40 F.Supp. 62, 63-65 (E.D.Pa. 1941). There, mortgagees of a premises sought correction of a defect in a mortgage signed by a husband who was alone during a t......
-
Peoples Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club
...the one hand be permitted to disavow the agreement as to priority, yet affirm it as to the validity of its mortgage. See In re Solomon, 40 F.Supp. 62, 63 (D.Pa.1941). Additionally, it seems to us anomalous for ACDG to assert Peoples was a partner in the partnership, yet claim the confession......