Barlow v. Beall
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of ejectment by Beall v. Barlow, the landlord, and Read, his tenant, to recover a lot of ground in Allegheny city. The question was, whether Barlow, from the record itself, was visited with notice that the person from whom he purchased the lot in dispute was the attorney of Trainer’s heirs, when the said person purchased the lot at sheriff’s sale.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of ejectment by Beall v. Barlow, the landlord, and Read, his tenant, to recover a lot of ground in Allegheny city. The question was, whether Barlow, from the record itself, was visited with notice that the person from whom he purchased the lot in dispute was the attorney of Trainer’s heirs, when the said person purchased the lot at sheriff’s sale. The lot had been the property of Schoyer, who conveyed to Seville, by deed dated 20th October, 1836. Judgment was had in favor of Schoyer v. Seville for $480, being No. 186, of July…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
The simple question is, are the memoranda on the margin of the docket and execution, naming the attorney in the cause, so far a part of the record as to charge a purchaser of land from or under a sheriff’s vendee with notice that such vendee was the attorney of the plaintiff, and therefore a purchaser in trust for Mm ? In other words, when a person is buying land which has a sheriff’s deed in its chain of title, must he examine the records of the Court, to see whether the sheriff’s vendee was the plaintiff’s attorney in the judgment on which…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Haggerty v. MoyermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- O'Neil v. Lex, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1927