Schekter v. Katler

95 Pa. Super. 226, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 14, 1928·No. Appeal 25·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

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

Schekter v. Katler, 95 Pa. Super. 226, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16 (Pa. Ct. App. 1928).

95 Pa. Super. 226 (Schekter v. Katler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. McHale
44 Pa. D. & C. 93 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'n v. Winowich
187 A. 481 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Public Security Co. v. Turnbull
100 Pa. Super. 367 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)