¶1We can permit Mrs. Susannah Budden to take the surplus money out of court on no other terms, than giving security under our direction, for the payment of the principal sum after her death, to the administrators of hei son, for the use of his creditors. In the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county in the case of Whitehill v. Houston’s executors, testator mortgaged a house and lot in Philadelphia, and then devised the same to his wife for life, remainder to his son in fee. The son mortgaged the remainder. The premises were sold on a levari facias on the first mortgage, and a surplus of near 80I. remained after paying the first mortgage and costs. It was there ruled that the second mortgagee on giving security for the payment of the interest of the surplus to the widow during her life, should take the surplus money out of court.
1 Yeates 187
Bloomfield v. Budden
Decided September 15, 1792
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1792-09-15
Richard Budden made his will, and devised certain real property in the city of Philadelphia, to Susannah his widow, during life, remainder to his two children, James and Susan-nah, who intermarried with William Strieker. His executors having resigned their trust, administration was granted to Susannah his widow, and James his son, who is now dead.
Decided 1792-09-15