Irwin v. Hess
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898,. by defendant, from order of O. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1880, No. 24, fi. fa. Jan. Term, 1898, No. 33, discharging rule taken at defendant’s instance to show cause why the writ of fieri facias should not be stayed and set aside. Rule to show cause why fi. fa. should not be stayed and set aside.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 184, Oct. T., 1898,. by defendant, from order of O. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1880, No. 24, fi. fa. Jan. Term, 1898, No. 33, discharging rule taken at defendant’s instance to show cause why the writ of fieri facias should not be stayed and set aside. Rule to show cause why fi. fa. should not be stayed and set aside. Before Beubakee, J. It appears from the record that an action of trespass was brought against Lorenz Nolde in 1880. On January 8, 1885, Lorenz Nolde by deed duly recorded conveyed certain real estate to his son, John S. Nolde, the consideration being stated as 11,750.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Bbavbb, J.,
A writ of fi. fa. was issued upon a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the administrator of the decedent and a levy made by the sheriff upon a parcel of ground conveyed by the decedent in his lifetime to his son. No sci. fa. was issued upon the judgment to bring in the widow and heirs. The bill of costs was not formally taxed before the issue of the fi. fa. The appellant claims that the fi. fa. should be set aside, (1) because no sci. fa. had issued to bring in the widow and heirs; (2) that *167the orphans’ court has exclusive jurisdiction to make sale of the real…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shontz v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Zuver v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Smith v. GrimSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Becker v. GoldschildSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Drum v. PainterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Philadelphia v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923