Case ID: nys_122/html/0720-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIÁM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VAN NAME v. QUEENS LAND & TITLE CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 29, 1910.)
    Judicial Sales (§ 28)—Enforcement of Bid.
    Though it be conceded, in a proceeding to compel the purchaser at a judicial sale to take title, that the proper course was to order a new sale, such an order cannot be made therein; but motion therefor" must be made in the action in which the sale was made.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judicial Sales, Cent. Dig. § 55; Dec. Dig. § 28.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by William H. Van Name against the Queens Land & Title Company. From an order denying his motion to compel the assignee of the purchaser at a judicial sale to complete the purchase, said Van Name appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 130 App. Div. 857, 115 N. Y. Supp. 905.
    • Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J„ and CLARICE, SCOTT, Mc-LAUGHLIN, and DOWLING, JJ.
    Charles Goldzier, for appellant.
    Richard T. Greene, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIÁM.

Although it was conceded upon the argument that the proper course to pursue was to order a resale, instead of proceeding at once against the purchasers to take title, such an order cannot be made in this kind of a proceeding. A motion to that effect ■should be made in the action in which the sale was ordered.

- The order, therefore, is affirmed, without costs to either party, without prejudice to a motion in the action for a resale.