Schekter v. Katler
This text of 95 Pa. Super. 226 (Schekter v. Katler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
Mere inadequacy of price, without more, is not a sufficient ground for setting aside a sheriff’s sale of real estate: Nutt v. Berlin Smokeless C. & C. M. Co., 262 Pa. 417; Stroup v. Raymond, 183 Pa. 279, 283; Felton v. Felton, 175 Pa. 44; Hollister v. Vanderlin, 165 Pa. 248; Cake v. Cake, 156 Pa. 47. On the other ground relied on to set aside the sale, fraud, the court below found against the petitioner and appellant. The evidence on the subject is not clear enough to warrant us in reversing its finding. The setting aside of judicial sales is a subject peculiarly within the discretion of the court below, and its action will not be reversed except in a clear case of abuse of that discretion: Laird’s Appeal, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 300, 304; Stroup v. Raymond, supra, p. 281; Germer v. Ensign, 155 Pa. 464; Ritter v. Getz, 161 Pa. 648.
*228 In the light of the court’s finding, and our statement above concerning it, further discussion ivould be to no profit.
The appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 Pa. Super. 226, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schekter-v-katler-pasuperct-1928.