Light v. Zeller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Light v. Zeller

45 A. 1055, 195 Pa. 315, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 633

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 9, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 390

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 45 A. 1055 (Light v. Zeller) 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

Light v. Zeller, 45 A. 1055, 195 Pa. 315, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 633 (Pa. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is the settled rule that Avhile inadequacy of price is not by itself sufficient to justify the court in setting aside a sheriff’s sale, yet where there is great inadequacy the court may seize upon other circumstances in order to give rélief: Ritter v. [317]*317Getz, 161 Pa. 648; Stroup v. Raymond, 183 Pa. 279. Wbat other circumstances are sufficient for this purpose is largely in the discretion of the court below, and whether or not we should in its place have reached the same conclusion in the present case, we have not been convinced that there was error which calls for reversal. As said in Ritter v. Getz, supra, “ we do not review the action of the lower courts in setting aside sheriff’s sales except in extreme eases, and this is not one of them. ”

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam,

It is the settled rule that Avhile inadequacy of price is not by itself sufficient to justify the court in setting aside a sheriff’s sale, yet where there is great inadequacy the court may seize upon other circumstances in order to give rélief: Ritter v. [317]*317Getz, 161 Pa. 648; Stroup v. Raymond, 183 Pa. 279. Wbat other circumstances are sufficient for this purpose is largely in the discretion of the court below, and whether or not we should in its place have reached the same conclusion in the present case, we have not been convinced that there was error which calls for reversal. As said in Ritter v. Getz, supra, “ we do not review the action of the lower courts in setting aside sheriff’s sales except in extreme eases, and this is not one of them. ”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 1055, 195 Pa. 315, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/light-v-zeller-pa-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack