Hettler v. Shephard

191 A. 581, 326 Pa. 165, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 441
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1937
DocketAppeal, 145
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 191 A. 581 (Hettler v. Shephard) 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
Hettler v. Shephard, 191 A. 581, 326 Pa. 165, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 441 (Pa. 1937).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Kephart,

This is an appeal from an order setting aside a sheriff’s sale for inadequacy of the price at which the property was purchased.

A petition or motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale is the proper procedure when the purchase price is grossly inadequate, and an order granting relief will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the court below abused its discretion: Kline v. Kline, 324 Pa. 145; Lefever v. Kline, 294 Pa. 22. We held in Delaware County Nat’l Bank v. Miller, 303 Pa. 1, where an order setting aside a sheriff’s sale was challenged that . . the ultimate test always is, whether or not the action of the court on setting aside the sale was a gross abuse of discretion, . . . and he would be a strange student of .the law who could conclude that a chancellor grossly abused his discretion by refusing to do that which would have shocked his conscience.” An application to set aside a sheriff’s sale should be made promptly before intervening rights are prejudiced.

While the property sold was assessed for $3,080, the real value was above this figure and the amount realized at the sale, $989.76, covered merely taxes and costs. The court below found that such price was inadequate. The great disproportion between the price realized at the sale and the real value of the property effectively *167 negatives the contention that the lower court abused its discretion. Such gross inadequacy of price offered sufficient basis for the action of the court below.

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.

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

Related

City of Philadelphia v. Zig Zag, LLC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2022
Goldman Sachs v. Cedeno, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
S & T Bank by Dalessio v. Dalessio
632 A.2d 566 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Bornman v. Gordon
527 A.2d 109 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Tracy v. County of Chester
463 A.2d 1251 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Lapp v. County of Chester
445 A.2d 1356 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Scott v. Adal Corp.
419 A.2d 548 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
CAPOZZI v. Antonoplos
201 A.2d 420 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
National Bank v. Nitterhouse
18 Pa. D. & C.2d 505 (Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 1958)
Baton Coal Company Appeal
76 A.2d 194 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Federal Land Bank v. Richards
47 Pa. D. & C. 389 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
Eells v. Schick
34 Pa. D. & C. 535 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Blickle
199 A. 213 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Edwards
329 Pa. 529 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
H. O. L. C. v. Edwards Et Ux.
198 A. 123 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Scott
198 A. 115 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Alexander's Estate
31 Pa. D. & C. 17 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1937)
Knox v. Noggle
196 A. 18 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
American State Bank & Trust Co. v. Mariades
196 A. 71 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Beaver Falls B. & L. Ass'n v. Froimson
30 Pa. D. & C. 489 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 A. 581, 326 Pa. 165, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hettler-v-shephard-pa-1937.