This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...above mentioned always remained upon the premises, and the ownership of it is now claimed by Rieker and Horting. No lease was made for this personal property to the subsequent tenants of the premises; but by an arrangement, interest was paid, at least by Pfaeme, on the amount of $3,150.00, which it was alleged remained yet due upon the notes. The judgment was entered of record, and remains at this time open against the defendant, and he alleges that, its purposes having been subserved, he is entitled to have a satisfaction entered thereon, or at least an opening of the judgment, so that he can be let into a defense. We think that the last remedy is the proper one, under the circumstances. Both of the plaintiffs admit that the judgment was given as collateral security for the promissory notes given by the defendant, and Rieker in addition asserts that it was for protection on the lease as well as on the notes. It appearing that the notes were lifted and surrendered, if it was given for their protection, it follows that there is nothing due upon it, for the plaintiffs cannot use it as security, for other notes not contemplated in the original transaction. If it was given as security for the rent re served in the lease, then a sufficient answer is made that the property was, in June, 1909, placed into the possession of, and under the control of, the plaintiffs, and has remained in their possession and control ever since. In addition, it is admitted that the defendant never exercised the right to purchase the property, and that the title to the goods is in Rieker and Horting. The law is well settled in transactions of this character. In Kelley Springfield Road Roller Company vs. Schlimme, 220 Pa., 413, an action was brought upon promissory notes for a machine r...