The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-12-19
Gbe enquirer.
RICHMOND, 1873 DECEMBER.


Fezv hsaie cafes haue exeited greater eariosf, IN
tk;J cifv, iran the one evbieb called forth the
.foHosving Opinion of The Chief JuQiee of the
United States. Tbo' this opinion eoas not ei-
%ea bet5,~ tetarties iatereaea had agreed M
on a eonbromyc, the principle. qv6icb IL ftp
Ports. mar bereaffer dreome a precedent for all
future aeejfo1 in yEmiinr edeJ.
The motions now made in this caufe, refpe0
the execution of a decree made in this court by
content, in June 1904,
Bv that decree, the defendant, Rofs, was di-
; retfed 70 pay to the plaintiff, the fun of 1884,
SS4 dols. 30 ceuts, by certain indictments in the
decree fpeci6ed: And in default of payment,
1t was ordered, that the MARTIAL do, from tine
tntime, make faie of the lands, tenements, dawes
and other perfonal property mentioned in GER
tain indentures which are filed in the caufe, or
fnch part thereof as fhali appear fnficient to
raife the fun of money that fhall then be due
or payable. The fales were to BE FOR ready
money. and the times and places to he adver.if-
ed fix weeks in one or more of the Richmond
newspapers. The MARTIAL was to pay to the
plaintiff the money 70 RATED, or 70 much there
of as would d~ifcharye the fums then due, and
TO bring the iurpins, fauy, into court.
Default of payment having been made by the
plaintiff, 4 large traf Of land, confHfing of 49,
900 acres, called the Oxford iron works, being
ohN VI iN All III u oCCECSS
was advertifed and fold and Thomas Taylor
became the purchafer, at the price of lso5o
dolls. The officer has reported his proceedings
= 10 the court, and a motion has been made to
confirm the report, and to diretf the marfhalto
put the pure hafer in poftfioR Of the premifes.
a crofs motion has been. made on the part of
the defendant, TO fet aide the fae, as having
been irregulsr'y conducted, or to open the bid
ding in conteGuence Of an offer now made to
nt,rrhnfs five land NJ JCphle fhs nric. oiyep for
it by Mr.. Taylor.
AS the fuccefs of the frf motion depends en-
tirelv on the validity of the objections made to
the file, the court viii now review thofe OBJ
je4ions:
On the irf part of this mo,ion-that, the
fale hou'd be fet aide for irregularity-the de-
frnlant urges three points:
lst. That fo large and valuable an eftate
fhould have been fold in parcels and not entire.
eddy. That the advertisement did not give frf-
fcient time, did not Efficiently difufe the in
formation, and was not efficiently defcriptivc
Of the property.
sdly. That the fale was a mere mockery,
there being only one perfon prefent to bid, ex-
cept the officer, and therefore the property was
facr;fced, not fold.
Whatever weight the court might have been
difpofed to allow to the objection which re-
fpects the conduct of the marihal in Offering the
entire traGt of land for fale, had that officer re-
gr'ated hinfelf in that particular, by hiss own
irdSmept or theinlruAions Of the plaintiff, mons
Gao be gwen TO IT under the attual circumttances
of the cafe. J. vas referred TO Mr.. RofS him
fslf 70 decide whether the land hould he fold
in parcels or in one entive tratt, and he lnet~d
dreruoufy or the latter mode of faIe, giving il
as his opinion, through his agents, that the ef-
tate could not he divided without material in-
jury. If, after this, the narihsl had proceeded
to fet it up in parcels, and the fales had been
low, every perfon mutt perceive with what adj.
ditio1al plauibiity the objections To the mods
of iale adopted by the officer might have been
urged.
Ii is fugeefed that this declaration on the
part of Mr.. Rofs applied to the &, It and not the
fecOnd fale. Were this fuggeaion fnpported
by the fact, the court doesnot perceive its in.
fuence. The circumstances OF the eltate re.
manned the fare, and the officer could not fup-
pofe Mr.. Rufs to have changed his opinion ul-
LET'S he had communicated that change. But
fhc fact is, that MIR. Rofs exprefIed the fame fen
tiTent with refpea to the ed fale. In his report,
after mentioning the ~necefity of telling for the
i~nta'nent which became due in July 1905, MIR.
Mciby !ays, "the falr OF the Oxford iron work
and lands adjoining, not being completed, the
fad Rof; and Wickham agreed that they fhouid
again be expofed to fale in preference to any o.
ther part of the truR property; the faid Rofs
then requeitrd that the faid irCn works and
lands might be fold together"
The particular motives of Mr.. Pofs for max
jig this reqnelt have perhaps been truly fated
.6y his %counirl; bur whatever they might be, il
is not for him to object to an act performed at
his initance.
The court has felt as little difficulty in decid-
ing On the Efficiency Of the advertisement. The
faie has been publihed for a greater length of
time, and in a greater number of papers than is
required by a decree framed by the parties
tiIemielyes, but had he not exceeded thefe IL
mits, it would Think outrage the clearef prin
cipl"sto fay, that An officer had executed a de-
cree irregularly, becaufc his advertisement had
ftri6tly CONFIRMED to that decree. To the OBJ
jeetion which refpe6ts the defcriptior Of the
property, it has very properly been ahfwered
Tat this notice was in part prepared by Mr..
Rofs l,imirIf, and NUT therefore be coniidercd
as having received his appreciation. But in any
event, he might have added fuch A Description
Of the property as his knowledge of it enabled
him to give. A minute defrription from the
marfhal was not to be expected. An important
rsafon againo it is that an error in the defcrip-
zion might have afeSted the fale.
But it is fusge0ed, that the proviions in the
decree, which relate to the advertisement were
NOT made under the contemplation that the
whole property contained in the deed of truf,