Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/104

 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

83

tion would be given by any other court in horse could not be sold clear of the charge Christendom to such a statutory provision, for its keep or for its shoeing, even with no and we could not assume that a statute of tice to the creditor, the highest security California was there read with such a gloss. known to any law was made liable to be di His confirmation in Presbyterian Church vested without notice by such a sale. Is it z,. Wallace, of Willard v. Norris, the most dis not a paradoxical mind and of the worst astrous decision ever rendered, that is, that stamp that can see nothing in such results any and all judicial sales extinguish mort to weigh against abstract reasoning, or rather gages, is another instance. It is the more to suggest a hidden fallacy in the process?

remarkable because Look also at the rea he places the question soning on the word in the very best possi incumbrance, that be ble position and on cause the usual incum the soundest foundabrances {judgments) . tions, and then imme are discharged and a diately deduces the mortgage is an incum wrong conclusion. It brance, therefore, etc. is stated, 3 Rawle, p. Are leases, or annui 128, that a mortgage ties, or dower, or cur as between the parties tesy discharged; are is a conveyance so far they not all incum as is necessary to en brances and nothing force it as a security. else? No doubt the As regards third per substantial ownership sons the mortgagor is of the mortgagee is the owner of the legal the debt. Extinguish estate. Unless the that and his estate object of the convey ceases. But the real point of the case was, ance was confined to enforcing, and did not as Gibson himself states, that the title extend to giving or in form and for every creating or securing the rights to be se purpose that could HENRY W. WILLIAMS. cured, such reasoning advantage the creditor ought to have led to did pass, leaving the the conclusion that the estate which vested debtor every right that did not disturb his as against the owner could not be divested grant. by any one subsequently claiming under the There is a passage in the judgment of owner who had granted an estate in order to Judge Burnside in Grant v. Levan, 4 Barr, 423, beginning with the words, "This is the secure the right. Still more astounding is it, if one recollects material point of the case," which there are that it required a statute to make it possible good grounds for believing was written by for a creditor to reach a chattel on which Gibson. On a draft of lands found among there was a mere lien, because that would the papers of the person through whom the have disturbed the lien. And when this plaintiff claimed by descent, were written power was granted, the lien was continued these words : " These lands sold to Robert on the property when in the hands of the Morris, Esq., of Phila. Deeds poll to him, purchaser, Act 1836, s. 23; so that while a purchase money paid me. (Signed) Robert