Spang v. Schneider
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas .of Montgomery. March 26. Schneider, having obtained a judgment, issued a fi. fa., under which a levy was made on “ 11 acres of land of (defendant), the improvements are, &c.” At the sale, Schneider became the purchaser, and was so returned by the sheriff; but he refusing to comply, the land was sold under another execution, and this action brought by the sheriff for the difference.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas .of Montgomery. March 26. Schneider, having obtained a judgment, issued a fi. fa., under which a levy was made on “ 11 acres of land of (defendant), the improvements are, &c.” At the sale, Schneider became the purchaser, and was so returned by the sheriff; but he refusing to comply, the land was sold under another execution, and this action brought by the sheriff for the difference. Krause, P. J., was of opinion that, as there was no description of the township, county, or boundaries, he was not liable.
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The description in the levy was sufficient. The purchaser, we may presume, had no difficulty at the time of his bid, in referring it to the locality he thought or believed he was purchasing. The inquest ^eem to have had no difficulty whatever in ascertaining the land, and fixing the value of the rents, issues, and profits.
Hyskill v. Given, 7 S. & R. 369, and Swartz v. Moore, 5 Ib. 257, settle principles which govern this case. If there is any uncertainty in the description, arising from extrinsic facts, it can be cured by testimony, like other cases of latent ambiguity.
The plaintiff himself…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wildasin v. BareSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895