Ritter v. Getz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 454, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, James R. Ritter, from order of C. P. Union Co., March T., 1892, No. 133, making absolute rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 454, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, James R. Ritter, from order of C. P. Union Co., March T., 1892, No. 133, making absolute rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. The following opinion was filed by McClure, P. J.: “ Justice Woodward in Swires v. Brotherline et al., 41 Pa. 135, says that ‘ courts having control of writs of execution do sometimes treat gross inadequacy of price as a reason for setting aside sales of real estate.’ We know of no case wherein it is held that mere inadequacy of price is sufficient cause for setting aside a sheriff’s sale of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We see no reason for disturbing the discretionary action of the learned court below in this case in setting aside the sheriff’s sale. The reasons stated in the opinion are quite sufficient to justify the action óf the court. The application to set the sale aside was made immediately after the sale and' before the acknowledgment of any deed. The price was grossly inadequate, and the court was at liberty to seize upon any other circumstances in order to give relief. We do not review the action of the lower courts in setting aside sheriff’s sales except in extreme cases, and this is…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Stroup v. RaymondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Light v. ZellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Taylor v. BaileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Appeal of LairdSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Wagener v. YetterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.