Case ID: pa_14/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sowers versus Vie.
    Leasehold property need not he sold on the ¡premises.
    
    A sheriff's deed for leasehold premises need not he acknowledged, nor is it necessary that there he a deed at all. His return is evidence of the sale of a chattel, whether real or personal.
    Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county.
    
    This was an action of ejectment brought by Vie against Sowers and Sowers, to recover a leasehold property for a term of years, on Ohio street, in the city of Allegheny. The property had been sold at sheriff’s sale. The plaintiff Vie claimed as assignee of the sheriff’s vendee.
    On the trial, there was offered, on the part of plaintiff, the sheriff’s deed and the assignment of it to him. It was objected, by defendant’s counsel, that the deed of the sheriff was not acknowledged in open court; secondly, that the sale took place at the court-house, and not at or near the premises, which is admitted. The objections were overruled and defendant’s counsel excepted.
    Verdict for plaintiff.
    Error was assigned to the admission of the evidence.
    Argued by Bliher, for plaintiff in error. —
    Cited 5 Humphrey’s Rep. 577 ; Gift v. Anderson, Kinne’s Law Com. for 1847, p. 243, that personal property sold by the sheriff Or other officer, without such property being present at the time and place of sale, the sale is void, unless the execution debtor waive the necessity of its presence.
    
      Mellon, in reply.
   Per curiam.

— There is no more reason that leasehold should be sold on the premises than that freehold should. It would frequently be difficult, and always unprofitable, to collect a crowd in a mine, or at a ferry, or on the shore of a fishery; for no man bids for either freehold or leasehold, without having investigated the qualities and value of the property. Better to have the sale where those who bid on the spur of the occasion usually congregate. As to the omission of the sheriff to acknowledge the deed in open court, it is sufficient to say there was no necessity for a deed at all. His return is evidence of the sale of a chattel, whether real or personal.

Judgment affirmed.