Cake v. Cake
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 38, July T., 1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 19, discharging rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. The petition for the rule averred that the lots had been sold in a lump when they should have been sold separately, that the bidders were guilty of misconduct, and that the price was inadequate. The respondents filed an answer denying the averments of the bill.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 38, July T., 1893, by defendant, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 19, discharging rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. Rule to set aside sheriff’s sale. The petition for the rule averred that the lots had been sold in a lump when they should have been sold separately, that the bidders were guilty of misconduct, and that the price was inadequate. The respondents filed an answer denying the averments of the bill. The answer was sworn to, but, by mistake, the prothonotary did not sign the jurat. Subsequently the court made the following order: “ And now, Feb.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We find nothing in this record to warrant either reversal or modification of the order complained of. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.
Order affirmed, with costs to be paid by J. W. Cake.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Plummer v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- LANSDOWNE BY LANSDOWNE v. GC Murphy Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Appeal of LairdSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Felton v. FeltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Schekter v. KatlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.