
    Rice v. Kinney, Appellant.
    Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Sheriffs’ sales — Exceptions.
    An. appeal from the action of the Common Pleas Court in dismissing exceptions to the confirmation of a sheriff’s deed for property sold under a venditioni exponas was dismissed where nothing appeared on the record showing that the court erred in dismissing the exceptions, although complaint had been made of the refusal of the court to vacate the judgment under which the property was sold, but no appeal had been taken from such action of the court.
    Argued Jan. 24,1917.
    Appeal, No. 343, Jan. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1913, No. 2464, dismissing exceptions to the confirmation of a sheriff’s deed, in case of Elmer C. Rice v. Robert D. Kinney.
    Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to .the confirmation of a sheriff’s deed.
    From the record it appeared that on March 31, 1913, the appellee, -Elmer C. Rice, issued a summons in assumpsit against the appellant, Robert D. Kinney, which was served, and on April 2, 1913, filed his statement of claim, wherein he claimed upon and set forth in said statement true copies of six promissory notes, each of the sum of $200. An affidavit of defense was filed by appellant, Robert D. Ivinney, and the cause came on for trial May 5, 1914, and resulted in a verdict on May 7, 1914, in favor of appellee, Elmer C. Rice, for $1,597.20. A rule was taken for a new trial, which was discharged, other rules were taken by appellant, Robert D. Kinney, all of which were discharged. Judgment was entered upon said verdict July 11, 1914, from which no appeal has been taken. On August 21,1916, after issuance of an alias venditioni exponas, the real estate of appellant, Robert D. Kinney, was sold by the sheriff of Philadelphia, on the third Monday of September, 1916, for the price of $250, to Albert W. Mylin.
    Exceptions were filed to the confirmation of the, sale, complaining inter alia of the action of the court in refusing to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
    The court dismissed the exceptions. Robert D. Kinney appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were in dismissing the exceptions.
    
      Robert D. Kinney, pro se, appellant.
    John. B. Rutherford, for appellee.
    March 12, 1917:
   Per Curiam,

This appeal ‘is from the action of the court below in dismissing exceptions to the confirmation of a sheriff’s deed for property of the appellant, sold on an execution issued May 9,1916, upon a judgment entered against him on a verdict on July 11,1914. Nothing whatever appears showing that the court below erred in dismissing the exceptions. If the appellant was aggrieved by its action on his rule to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated, the verdict set aside, and a new trial granted, his remedy was by appeal from such action within the statutory period.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.  