Hamilton v. Seitz

25 Pa. 226
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 Pa. 226 (Hamilton v. Seitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. Seitz, 25 Pa. 226 (Pa. 1855).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Knox, J.

We are fully satisfied with the reasons given by the learned judge of the District Court, in support of the judgment for the defendants, non obstante veredicto. We are bound to presume that the amendment permitted in the numbers of the lots sold was founded upon satisfactory evidence that a mistake was made in that part of the description of the levy, and that the true numbers of the lots, really levied upon and sold, were 3 and 4 instead of 2 and 3. Besides which, the objection to the amendment is neither made by the proper person nor in the right place. The regularity of an amendment made by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be inquired into collaterally; and, whilst the defendant acquiesces, a.subsequent purchaser at sheriff’s sale can make no valid objection to it.

Judgment affirmed.-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tourison's Estate
184 A. 95 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Brush v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
208 P. 997 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Todhunter v. De Graff
146 N.W. 66 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Estate of McClain
36 A. 743 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Pa. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-seitz-pa-1855.