The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-12 00:00:00

lab Inttlltgenct.

EQUITY COURTS.
Wore the Lord Chancellor.
ROBINSON AND °TRIMS D. WALL AND OTHERS.—SALE
ET AUCTION.—RISERTED BIDDINO.—This appeal from a
decree of the Master of the Rolls was argued the 30th June
and 2nd July, and the circumstances of the cause and the
question raised on them were then reported is this journal.
The main facts, it may be remembered, were, that on the
insolvency of the late Sir Thomas Champneys in 1834, his
assignees proposed to sell his marital ioterest in certain ex-
tensive estates, which had then recently fallen to Lady
Champneys for her life under her father's will, with remain-
der, in the event of that lady having no children (which is
yet the case) to her rider Lady bloatyn for life, and after
her death to her eldest son Edward Lloyd Mostyn in tail.
Lord Mostyn, being desirous to acquire the entire Inman in
the estates for his wife and said son, with a view to family
arrangements, entered into an agreement (of a very compli-
cated nature) with the insolvent's assignees and with Lady
Champneys, by which he was to give the assignees 35,0001.
for the insolvent's interest in the estates if no one
hid higher for it at the sale by auction, which the
Insolvent Act required to be held ; but if the biddings
exceeded 31,0001.. the highest bidder was to be declared the
purchaser. The assignee*, in the printed conditions of sale,
did sot mention the arrangement with Lord Mostyn, but
stated that the sale was to be " without reserve." The bidding
at the auction (in or about 1839) was carried very far beyond
35,0001., the last bidding of Lord Mostyn himself being
49,8001., which was exceeded by 2001. by Wall, who was
declared the purchaser at 50,0001. It appeared afterwards that
Wall was the agent of one Flight. Sir T. Champneys died
soon afterwards, and Wall and Flight declined to complete
their purchase, oa the ground, principally, that there was
a went arrangement between the vendors and Lord bionyn,
which amounted to a reserved bidding. That also was the
main defence made by them to the bill for specific perform-
ance of the purchase, and that defence was supported by the
decree of the Master of the Rolls.
The Lord Chancellor gave his judgment on Saturday.
The Master of the Rolls, his Lordship said, was al
opinion that the purchase in the sale by auction Mis
void, on the ground that the arrangement previously enteral
into by the assignees with Lord Mostyn was inconsistent
with the contract made with the public, or contained
in the conditions of sale. Those conditions expressed that
the sale was to be made " without reserve ;" but the sale
took place under circumstances which, the defendants con-
tended, made the purchase void. As to the meaning of the
words " without reserve" in conditions of sale, the case that
was found applicable was that of "Meadows v. Tanner"
(5 Maddox, 37), where Sir John Leach said these words in
the particuhus of sale meant, that "no person would be
employed to bid in behalf of the vendor for the purpose of
keeping up the price." The question was, whether the sale
in the preeent case was held in pursuance of the contract made
with the public as expressed in the conditions of sale. If it
is made clear in any case that the sale is not made con-
sistently with that contract, it is not a valid sale such as this
court will decree to be performed. The conditions express-
ing this sale to be " without reserve" imported that on
bidder should have any better right than Warts, hen
that whoever would bid highest should he claimed the
purchaser. If, therefore, there be by any connivent* MI 16-
serve from what is disclosed to the public, that is hbeinieletent
with the contract made with the public. The cireamlances
of this case appeared to amount to a reserved bidding. By
the agreement with Lord Mostyn there was to be no sale at
the auction if the price bid did not exceed 35,0001. any bid-
- that sue• - i not to be regarded ; and the proposed
'ed that sum, was a mockery of
sale without reserve ; bat a
prevent the public bidder
at any less sum than 35,0001. It
lordship that that arrangement by
`es purchase the property unless the
was a reserve contrary to the
?fore the bill was properly
be dismissed with costa.

dine under that slim was notto be regarded ; and the proposed
sale, until the bidding exceeded that sum, was a mockery of
sale. It was not, therefore, a sale without reserve ; but a
sale with such reserve as would prevent the public bidder
from having the property. attatintly ltehsetsuhmtthan 3.5,0001. t
wa=le public was therefore t
not tog purchase apropertya unless the
price bad exceeded 36,0001, wet, a reserve contrary to the
conditions of sale; and that therefore the bill was properly
diem:timed, and the appeal should be dismissed with costa.
More Viee•Clancellor Wisnuo.
Asneox O. Loan LANGDALE AND OTHERS.—CONSTRUC-
TION OF WILL.—INQUIRIKS.—The question in this cause
aeon upon the construction of tho will of the late Mr. John