Phillips v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 73, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Nov. T., 1893, fi. fa. No. 66, making absolute rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. The following opinion was filed by Doty, P. J. “We are asked by counsel for exceptant to put in writing our reasons for setting aside the sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 73, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Nov. T., 1893, fi. fa. No. 66, making absolute rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. The following opinion was filed by Doty, P. J. “We are asked by counsel for exceptant to put in writing our reasons for setting aside the sale. The petition to set aside the sale is made by George D. Hamor, Esq., in his own behalf and as attornej7 for the Land Title and Trust Company, and the answer to the rule is made by Jno. C. Robinson, Esq., on behalf of the purchaser and execution creditor.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
'Phis appeal is destitute of merit. Instead of showing such abuse-of judicial discretion,—on the.part of the court below, in *352setting aside the sheriff’s sale in question,—as would justify our interference, the record shows quite the contrary. From what appears therein, we are satisfied that, in making absolute the rule to show cause why the sale should not be set aside, the learned court acted within the lines of sound judicial discretion. Further comment is unnecessary. The correctness of the decree complained of is sufficiently vindicated in the opinion filed at the instance of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Appeal of LairdSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Haspel v. LyonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Shipley v. ShamwellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1914
- Barnes v. SkilesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- H. T. Cottam & Co. v. MoisesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.