Case ID: yeates_2/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Prior against Thomas Britton.
    Sale by a sheriff of two undivided third parts of three contiguous houses in one lot, confirmed by the court.
    Motion to set aside a sale of two undivided third parts of a certain lot of ground, situate in the city of Philadelphia, containing 65, feet on Front street, and extending to Water street, by the sheriff.
    It appeared, that three brick houses were erected on the lot, two of them being nearly of equal value, but the third not so valuable. A Mrs. Fleeson, who was seized of the remaining undivided third part, lived in one of the houses, but expressed no inclination to become a purchaser. The sale was adjourned at the instance of one of the agents of the creditors, from the 26th February until the 5 th March, and again to the 12th March, and was open and fair.
    It was contended on the part of the plaintiff and purchaser that the circumstances of the present case formed an exception to the general rule laid down by the court, at the last term, in John Harrison v. this defendant, that the sheriff should sell different houses, or tracts of land, separately in order to enhance the biddings at public sale. Few persons would choose to purchase an undivided interest in a house, which was incapable of division. A buyer could not reasonably promise himself a title in the entirety, in any given time, and this consideration must necessarily depreciate the sale. If three houses stood together of equal value, the exchange of an undivided third part of-the whole could readily be effected for the benefit of all the parties. And if they were not of the same relative value, still an interchange was facilitated by an entire sale, as a sum of money might be given, or received by way of owelty of partition.
    Messrs. Ingersoll, Lewis and M. Levy, fro quer.
    
    Messrs Rawle, Dallas and Milnor, fro def.
    
    And of this opinion was a majority of the court, who denied the motion, and confirmed the sale, (Smith, J. dissenting.)