Langenheim v. Becker on petition and answer. This operated as an admission by the defendant that the allegations contained in the answer are true, (Thomas Massey & Son v. Dunn, 38 Pa. C. C. 63); because, under our rules of pleading, the answer must be taken as true, until overcome by the testimony of two witnesses or its equivalent: Good, appellant, vs Grit Publishing Co., 214 Pa. 614. The case of German v Conover, appellant, 240 Pa. 11, is one of the last applications of the same general principle, although there it was also embodied in a special rule of the lower court. With the facts thus determined the rule must be discharged. The premises, which are apparently an unimproved lot of ground, were described in the advertisements of the sale by metes and bounds as "situate, lying and being in Ardmore, Township of Lower Merion, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania". Our attention has not been directed to any law which, as the defendant contends in his first exception, required the sheriff to describe them as "in almost the center of the village of Ardmore, a growing and well populated town" and we know of none such. The other ground of objection to the sale, inadequacy of price, is also disposed of by the answer and it cannot now avail the defendant to declare that one, Kisterbock, will pay $14,000 at a re-sale of the premises when that gentleman was actually represented at the sale of November 10th, entered into' competitive bidding for the property, and then declined to pay more than $11,000 for it. He has already had his opportunity and to set aside the sale and give him another chance would, under the circumstances, be trifling with the process of the court and without legal warrant. Furthermore, the property was purchased at the last sale, not by Mr. Langenheim, as the exceptions state, but by one, James F. Schaperkotter, who has compiled with its conditions and demanded his deed. He is not a party to the rule and has not been heard. The same conclusion is arrived at if we view the application before us as though no answer had been filed and the exceptions had been supported by depositions. The two grounds of exception are, as already stated, insufficiency of description in the advertisements of the sale and inadquacy of price obtained at it. The former, as set forth in the first exception, consists Langenheim v. Becker of the sheriff's failure to state in his advertisements that the premises are located almost in the center of a village. To state this contention is to answer it. And the second, as set forth in the exceptions, is a mere conclusion which does not necessarily follow from the facts as stated in them. The latter may show jockeying by the parties at the sale and that the defendant was out-witted, but they threw little, if any, light on the value of the premises or the price they should bring at a sheriff's sale. Neither does the declaration contained in the third exception go far enough. The whole record in this case well serves as a good example of the delays and vexation to which one seeking to enforce a right may be exposed under the law as it is at present administered. No encouragement should be given to such obstructive tactics, however, unless they are used in good faith and for the legitimate protection of right. We are not convinced that such is the case here. And now, ninth December, 1920, the exceptions are dismissed, and the rule to set aside the sale is discharged. 1876, May 1, P. L. 66, Insurance. 1855, April 26, P. L. 309, Limitation of Action. 1887, May 14, P. L. 108, Liquors. 50 244 302 130 175-172 307 173 211-165-158-113 164-114 164-114 63 186 345 130 47-44-41 1905, April 20, P. L. 235, Boroughs... 345 1907, May 23, P. L. 227, Desertion and Support. 350 1907, June 7, P. L. 440, Equity.... 43 1909, March 11, P. L. 15, Non Alcoholic Drink.. 162 350 320 350 1915, June 2, P. L. 763, Workingmen's Compensation 99-50-150-154-184-312 1915, June 5, P. L. 846, Municipal Corporation.. 266 187 89 1919, June 16, P. L. 480, Non Alcoholic Drink... 162 1919. June 26, P. L. 642, Workingmen's Compensation. 184-135 308 370 ACTIONS MONTGOMERY COUNTY Parties to, Employer of plaintiff, under Sec. 319 Workmen's Compensation Act, is not a party to action against defendant for injuries received due to negligence of defendant. 22. Recovery, When law requires certain acts to be done recovery cannot be had when there has been a failure to comply with the act. 187. AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENCE. Sufficiency of, Where vendee does all that can be done to comply with APPEAL. Affidavit of defense setting up damages resulting from Where the Affidavit of defence does not comply with the Where affidavit sets up an agreement as to rate of interest Where affidavit raises question of law which cannot be sustained a supplemental affidavit may be filed. 339. Where defense sounds in tort judgment can be sustained as to amount admitted to be due. 354. Time of Taking, Appeal from Compensation Board from its decisions must be taken within ten days. 182. Appeal from, CHILD Commonwealth cannot appeal from its own appraisement. 89. Custody of, The Court must decide in whose custody the best interest of child are served. 77. COLLATERAL APPRAISEMENT. Value of stock, The value of stock for tax purposes is not its intrinsic value but is market value. 69. CONSTITUTION. Amendment of, The constitution can be amended wherever approved by electors and such amendment is not restricted to once in five years, That only applies upon rejection of any proposed amendment. 253. |