McFarlin v. Lehder
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 211, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. Blair Co., June T., 1900, No. 26, making absolute a rule to show cause why writ of possession should not be issued to deliver real estate in possession of Mrs. Emma Lehder to D. M. McFariin, purchaser at her husband’s assignee’s sale. Rule to show cause why writ of possession should not be issued. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 211, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. Blair Co., June T., 1900, No. 26, making absolute a rule to show cause why writ of possession should not be issued to deliver real estate in possession of Mrs. Emma Lehder to D. M. McFariin, purchaser at her husband’s assignee’s sale. Rule to show cause why writ of possession should not be issued. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. The court below in an opinion by Bell, P. J., made the rule absolute. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1DissentBeaver, J.
As was said by our Brother Smith in Scott’s Estate, 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 567, “ the third section of the act of 1878 is designed to enable purchasers of real estate from assignees to get possession, without undue delay. Its purpose is to give effect to deeds of assignment by empowering the courts to order that possession be given to purchasers who have complied with the terms of the sale, but the proceeding under it does not involve or affect the title to the land: Lutz v. Kegerreis,.176 Pa. 164.” The terms of the act are very broad and specific. The object of it was undoubtedly to enable the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bonebrake v. SummersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Lutz v. KegerreisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- In re the Assigned Estate of ScottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897