Opinion
December 14, 1928.
January 25, 1929.
Judicial sales — Sheriffs sale of real estate — Inadequacy of price — Setting aside — Discretion of court.
Mere inadequacy of price, without more, is not a sufficient ground for setting aside a sheriff's sale of real estate.
The setting aside of judicial sales is a subject peculiarly within the discretion of the lower court and its action will not be reversed, except in a clear case of abuse of that discretion.
Appeal No. 25, October T., 1929, by Konqueror Building and Loan Association from order of C.P., No. 2, Philadelphia County, March T., 1928, No. 9304, in the case of George Schekter v. Mayer Katler.
Before HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP and CUNNINGHAM, JJ. Appeal dismissed.
Rule to set aside sheriff's sale of real estate. Before STERN, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Rule discharged. Konqueror Building and Loan Association appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
Benj. H. Levintow, and with him Samuel E. Kratzok, for appellant. — The holder of the junior encumbrance has the right to question the validity of a sheriff's sale upon an execution on a prior encumbrance: Tigue v. Banta, 176 Pa. 414; Weaver v. Henninger, 1 District County Reports 167; Phillips v. Wilson, 164 Pa. 350.
Joseph P. Gaffney, and with him Frederick W. Bauer, for appellee. — The setting aside or refusal to set aside a sheriff's sale is in the sound discretion of the court below: Snyder v. Snyder, 244 Pa. 331; Watkins v. Justice, 256 Pa. 37; Lefever v. Kline, 294 Pa. 22.
Argued December 14, 1928.
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. Super. 300, 304; Stroup v. Raymond, supra, p. 281; Germer v. Ensign, 155 Pa. 464; Ritter v. Getz, 161 Pa. 648.
In the light of the court's finding, and our statement above concerning it, further discussion would be to no profit.
The appeal is dismissed.