Bell v. Ingram
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Mifflin county. May 26. — The plaintiffs below were the heirs of George Bell, in whom the title of the land was originally vested. The defendants claimed as purchasers at sheriff’s sale, and the only question was, the validity of that sale. In September, 1818, judgment was recovered against the executors of George Bell, with stay of execution for one year, and a fi. fa. issued in November, 1819, and was returned not executed.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Mifflin county. May 26. — The plaintiffs below were the heirs of George Bell, in whom the title of the land was originally vested. The defendants claimed as purchasers at sheriff’s sale, and the only question was, the validity of that sale. In September, 1818, judgment was recovered against the executors of George Bell, with stay of execution for one year, and a fi. fa. issued in November, 1819, and was returned not executed. In November term, 1821, an al. fi. fa. issued, which was returned, “ extended.” A liberari and an alias and pluries were issued in April…
1Opinion of the Court
—Sergeant, J.
— The only question raised in this ease is, •whether.the title passed by the sheriff’s deed of 24th April, 1830. The plaintiffs allege that the lien acquired by the first levy under the alias fieri facias to November term, 1821, was abandoned by the issuing of the Second fieri facias to January term, 1829. Supposing that it be so, yet if the lien of the original judgment entered on the 18th September, 1818, with a stay of execution for one year, continued, the title acquired under the second execution,, issued on the judgment, reviving the former judgment, was valid. As the law…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Pennock's Executors v. M'KissonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Ebright v. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833