
    Zwinger v. Keim et al., Appellants.
    
      Sheriff’s sale — Real estate — Conditions of sale — Compliance — Right of judgment defendant to complain.
    
    1. Whether a sheriff will hold the purchaser of real estate at a sheriff’s sale to strict compliance with the conditions of the sale or not is a matter between him and the purchaser, of which no one else can complain, and least of all the defendant, whose duty it was to pay the judgment.
    2. Where it appeared that one of the conditions of the sale, as advertised by the sheriff, required the purchase-money to be paid on the Friday after the return day, and provided that if the purchase-money were not so paid, the property would be set up and resold at the expense of the purchaser, the fact that the sheriff allowed the purchaser some additional time in which to pay the purchase-money was'not ground for setting aside the sale at the instance of the judgment defendant.
    Argued Oct. 8, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 8, Oct. T., 1917, by defendants, from order of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1916, No. 501, discharging a rule to set aside a sheriff’s sale, in case of Margaret Zwinger v. Anton Keim and Mary Keim.
    Before Mestrezat, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule to set aside a sheriff’s sale.
    Shafer, P. J;, filed the following opinion:
    The rule was disposed of on the argument list some days ago, but, at request of exceptant’s counsel, we now put upon the record the reasons for discharging it. The exceptant to the sheriff’s sale is one of the defendants in the writ and her complaint substantially is that while the conditions of sale advertised by the sheriff required the purchase-money to be paid by Friday, July 7th, being the Friday after the return day, and stated that if it were not so paid the property would be set up and resold at the. expense of the purchaser; that the property was sold on the return day for two thousand odd dollars, to a Mrs. Nossack, who was at that time the owner of the judgment, and that the sheriff did not in fact set up the property for resale at that time but allowed the plaintiff some days in which to pay the purchase-money, and it was in fact paid to the sheriff a few days thereafter, and that on the Friday the exceptant requested that the property be set up and resold, which request the sheriff refused. It is also alleged that if the sale be set aside a somewhat better price might be obtained; although she does not say from whom or how much.
    Whether the sheriff will hold the purchaser to a strict compliance of the conditions of sale or not is a matter between him and the purchaser, of which no one else can complain and least of all the defendant, whose duty it was to pay the judgment. It was set up in the reasons for the rule that the property was sold after spirited bidding between the plaintiff and the defendant and an' outside party. We were therefore unable to see how any injustice was done to the exceptant. The rule was therefore discharged.
    The court discharged the rule. Defendants appealed.
    
      
      Error assigned, was the order of tbe court.
    
      William A. Golden, with bim Robbin B. Wolf, for appellants.
    
      A. E. Weger and Diamond & Zocharías, for appellee, were not beard.
    January 7, 1918:
   Per Curiam,

Tbe order discharging tbe rule to show cause wby tbe sheriff’s sale should not be set aside is affirmed on tbe opinion of tbe learned president judge of tbe court below.  