Hilliard v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hilliard v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co.

73 A. 191, 224 Pa. 132, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 741

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 15, 1909·No. Appeal, No. 327·Published

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

We have concluded after due consideration that this is an appeal from an interlocutory order, and under our decisions must be quashed. The order of sale, heretofore made and from which this appeal was taken is necessarily expended and cannot now be executed. If an alias order of sale be applied for an opportunity will be given by the court in banc for the interested parties to be heard so that the propriety as well as the necessity of renewing the order at this time may be determined. Such order of sale, or other decree, can then be made as will best protect and conserve the interests of all parties concerned under present conditions.

Motion to quash sustained and appeal quashed.

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

Pee Cueiam,

We have concluded after due consideration that this is an appeal from an interlocutory order, and under our decisions must be quashed. The order of sale, heretofore made and from which this appeal was taken is necessarily expended and cannot now be executed. If an alias order of sale be applied for an opportunity will be given by the court in banc for the interested parties to be heard so that the propriety as well as the necessity of renewing the order at this time may be determined. Such order of sale, or other decree, can then be made as will best protect and conserve the interests of all parties concerned under present conditions.

Motion to quash sustained and appeal quashed.

Hilliard v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co., 73 A. 191, 224 Pa. 132, 1909 Pa. LEXIS 741 (Pa. 1909).

Pincite

73 A. 191 (Hilliard v. Sterlingworth Railway Supply Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.