
    LESHER’S APPEAL.
    The Court will not enjoin proceedings before a justice to obtain possession of premises sold at Sheriff’s sale.
    Appeal from Common Pleas of Northumberland County. In Equity. No. 407, January Term, 1883.
    This was a bill in Equity for an injunction to restrain Phineas Leiser from proceeding to obtain possession of a certain property bought at sheriff’s sale, and to restrain waste. The Court refused the injunction in the following opinion, per
    Rockeeerrer, P. J.
    If there is any error on the face of the proceedings of tha Justice and the Jury the party has a remedy by certioraribut the Act of Assembly expressly says that “no certiorari which may be issued to remove such proceedings shall be a supersedeas, or have the effect to prevent or delay the execution aforesaid, or the delivery of possession agreeably thereto.” The defendant or party in possession can always preven! judgment by making the proper affidavit, and entering into a recognizance in accordance with the Act of Assembly. I! Alfred Lesher has the best title to the land in question, he can bring ejectment, have his writ ofestrepment for waste, or recover damages in an action for mesne profits. It is a rule that where there is an adequate remedy at law, a bill in equity does not lie. This rule, however, is subject to some exceptions. It is an unbending rule that the plaintiff must show a clear case to warrant the Court in granting a preliminary injunction. The law, the facts and the justice of the case must be clear. In the present case Mr. B. H. Lesher purchased the land, by agreement in writing, on the 3d of May, 1872-TJp to August 2d, 1875, he had paid about $1300 on account of the purchase money. He had an equitable title to that extent. The Lewisburg Building Association had a judgment, and also J. H. Harley had a judgment entered on June 29th, 1877, On the latter Phineas Leiser is bail. Both these judgments were liens upon the equitable estate of B. IL- Lesher. Then on the 28th of January, 1878, said B. H. Lesher assigned to Alfred Lesher all his right, title and interest in the agreement. It recites “for value received,” and also, “with the express understanding that the said Alfred pays c ff the amount due to the Lewi.-burg Building Association and the said further sum of $580.00 to the wife of the said B. H. Lesher”— * * .* . February 1, 1878, Alfred Lesher paid A. Pardee the balance of the unpaid purchase money, and on the 6th of May, 1878, received a deed, on the conditions as described in the above assignment made by B. H. Lesher to him, January 28th, 1878. This I understand to be an engagement on the part of Alfred to pay the debt of B. H. Lesher to the Lewisburg Building Association. There is still a balance due and unpaid. Phineas Leiser is bail in the next judgment, that of J. H. Harley. Pie certainly is greatly interested, and perhaps Mr. Alfred Lesher cannot in equity claim to hold the land as against Leiser, whose lien, through Harley’s judgment, would be reached in case the Lewisburg Building Association’s judgment was paid off, especially if that amounted to more th n the unpaid purchase money that Alfred liad to pay. Whether the purchaser of ah equitable title with liens upon it, who afterwards pays the balance of purchase money and fates a-deed, still has a prior right to the extent of said balance of purchase money is not clear.
    
      It is argued that, having purchased the equitable estate •with the liens upon it, if he afterwards pays off the purchase money and takes a deed, that is, the legal title, he has no claim as against the holders of the liens in the equitable title; that he is to be understood as simply paying off the claim that the vendor had as against the estate for unpaid purchase money, thereby making the estate bound by the liens so much more valuable, and this perhaps is plausible, for he stood in the shoes of the party holding the equitable estate who was bound to pay. On the whole, I have concluded that this is not such a clear case as would warrant me in staying proceedings at law by a special injunction. If the defendants proceed to take possession, the plaintiff has a clear remedy, if he sustains any injury.
    The rule for a special injunction is discharged.
    Lesher then appealed, complaining of the refusal to grant the injunction.
    
      Wm. A. Sober, Esq., for appellant,
    argued that an injunction will be issued to restrain acts contrary to equity; Stockdale vs. Ullery, 37 Pa., 486; Jones vs. Whitehead, 1 Pars. Eq. C., 304; Denny vs. Brunson, 29 Pa., 382; Equity is the proper proceeding; Dent vs. Ross, 35 Pa., 337.
    
      Oscar Faust, Esq., contra.
    
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on May 14th, 1883, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The Court committed no error in refusing the prayer for a special injunction. If the appellant desires to pursue the case to final decree, the merits of the whole case can there be passed upon. In the meantime we refrain from any further •opinion as to the merits of the case.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  