Sterrett v. Howarth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1. In a direct proceeding to set aside a foreign attachment, the court will quash or reverse where the sheriff has omitted to return a service on a person in possession of the land attached, or to make^ publication if the possession be vacant. 2. In a collateral proceeding to recover the land sold by the sheriff before the attachment has been set aside or reversed, such omission is but an irregularity and will not render the judgment and executions in the attachment…
Read the full summary
1. In a direct proceeding to set aside a foreign attachment, the court will quash or reverse where the sheriff has omitted to return a service on a person in possession of the land attached, or to make^ publication if the possession be vacant. 2. In a collateral proceeding to recover the land sold by the sheriff before the attachment has been set aside or reversed, such omission is but an irregularity and will not render the judgment and executions in the attachment absolutely void. 3. Such judgment and executions, though voidable, will support the sheriff’s sale. Error'to the Court of Common…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, October 26th 1874.
2Per curiam
In a direct proceeding to set aside a foreign attachment, the court will quash or reverse when the sheriff has omitted to return a service on a person in possession of the land attached, or to make publication according to law, if the possession be vacant. But in a collateral proceeding to recover the land, where the land has been sold at sheriff’s sale before the attachment has been set aside or reversed, the omission of the sheriff to state that the person on whom he has served the writ in connection with the land, holds the land…
3Cited by3 opinions
- Buckman v. SomersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Airston v. Bollinger, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1925
- Knepp v. Elder, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County1937