Case ID: binn_2/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of Murray and Wife against Galbraith.
    
    
      Sunbury, Wednesday, July 12.
    
    THE estate of the defendant in the premises in question was taken in execution, and sold by the plaintiff to one . J }. George Lang, who, pending this ejectment, obtained possession under the act of 6th April 1802, 5 St. Laws 266. r 7
    
    a person, who ^as purchased the defendant’s interest in the ^rem¿,cs a^ sheriff’s sale, and after eject-went brought has obtained possession unc}e? act of 6th April 1802, may be made a co-defendant, ”n°g uiei-e* may be persons inpurchasetlle whose names arenotdisclosC(lt /
    Upon an affidavit by Lang of the truth of these facts, and , f , . ° i-i . that he was substantially interested m the matter in controversy, Watts moved to add the name of Lang as co-defen- . ’ . , . dant in the suit.
    
      Duncan and Evans contra,
    suggested that other persons were interested in Lang’s purchase, and objected to the motion unless all their names were disclosed, and placed upon the record.
   • » • • But the Court thought there was nothing in the objection, and granted the motion.