BLOOMFIELD v. BUDDEN
2 U.S. 183 (1792)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

BLOOMFIELD v. BUDDEN, 2 U.S. 183 (1792)

2 U.S. 183 (Dall.)

Bloomfield
v.
Budden

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

September Term, 1792

Richard Budden devises, after payment of debts, a house to his wife for life, remainder to James and Susanna, his children. The widow and children afterwards mortgage this property, to the plaintiff, for the proper debt of James. The plaintiff sues out a scieri facias, and, after sale of the house, and satisfaction of the mortgage monies, the surplus was brought into Court, to be disposed of as the Court should direct.

Under these circumstances, M. Levy contended, that this debt, which James owed to the widow, was to be considered as a lien on the house, and that the surplus should be paid to her absolutely. Doug. 133. 2 Bl. Rep. 949. 2 Ves. 622. Brown. Ch. 421. Equity favors liens. A factor has a lien for his general balance. 4 Burr. 2220.

The Court ordered that the money be paid the widow, she giving security, that her executors, or administrators, should account for it, after her death, to those in remainder. And in case such security was not given, then that the money be paid to those in remainder, they giving security to pay the annual interest thereof, to the widow during her natural life.*

Footnotes

[Footnote *] This latter rule had been adopted by the Court of Common Pleas, in the case of Whitehall versus Houston.[ Bloomfield v. Budden

Footnote 2 U.S. 183 (1792) ]




Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.