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

: u'drthai 10 wnom they were all kD)wn, mutt AL
10 have copciuded from them, that Mr.. Rofs
was uniform and fyaematic in hi; endeavors to
defeat the trut, and the decree endercd with
the content OF parties, by becoming himfelf the
purohafer OF the truft property alta great under
value. That this would materially affect the
verted rights of the creditor is mo- to be doubt
ed.
DO not recite thief. particulars for the pur-
pole or reproaching Mr.. Rofs. I can readily
CONCEIVE that a man preffed as he is, may be-.
vu'ie h'mfeifi int the opinion that by extricatine
hrs property from liens. and recovering his DOW.
er TO difpote oft, he may ultimately do iuaice
% aii ; and that time win do for him more than
tine can perform. But I fate them to fhow
!ne real Gale I; and ! add to the fatement, that
nun MAKING fuch an attempt, the debtor fails,
&c mutt not expee the aid of a court to enable
MN 70 carry 1t into effect. He plays a game of
great hazard, and he rinks his whole fake up
on MS Kill and good fortune. d"
IN enquiring into the duty Of the officer, thcfc
circumstances are all TO be taken into view, and
.ne eTect which they would have and ought to
nave mad IN regulating his cohduSt. There was
no reaton for fuppofing that the caufes which
had Kept away bidders would ceafe TO operate.
l mere was no grclnd for the opinion, that if
another Tale fhould be advertifed, the fame mo-
yves FOR a It'll further pofponement would not
recur. No point of time could be taken when
the force OF thefe motives would be diminilhed.
IL "ou'd be IN fact to- counteRance the opini-
on that the creditor mutt be kept ont of his
money until the debtor fhou'd pay it without
coerhon. He could not forget that Mr.. Rots
mad already been INDUCED from the time of the
preceding fale, and he could not be fure that
an eXtenhon OF the indulgence, would change
the Rate of things for the better. Under thefe
circumstances. Icannot fay that the officer aaed
irregu!arly in ftling the property for the fun,
70 ralie which. Mr.. Rofs United it Mould be
,oio, and at which he expected to have become
himfelf the purcha!er.
1t has been faid that there were other irreeu-
iaritIes which will afift in violating the ~tranfac-
tom Mr.. Mofbv's bid has been reprefented as
a niBhty /; and cafes have been cited to prove
that he could not have been a purchafer. Thofe
caies certainly go a great way in efablinhing
the potion that, had he purchafed, Mr.. Rofs
would nave been let in to redeem on equitable
terms; but they do not prove his bid a %nullity.
90 TAR asrefpected the debtor, his bid had the
lame effect asif he had not been dif1bled from
becoming a purcha Ter for himfclf. II Affected
the bidding OF Mr.. Taylor in p~recifeIy the fame
unconnetted with the fale.
Neither was his declaration that he would hid
10 n certain price an impropriety which this
court can regard. independent of the conide-
ration that this declaration was drawn from him
by MIR. Rofs, and was not prohibited by any
known rule or ufage, I cannot perceive how it
affected the cafe.
1t oniy. hafened a difcoverv which Mr.. Tay-
Tor m,ift foon have made. When Mr.. .Mo,bv,s
cealsd to bid, the fecret would have been ii.
vu'sed; and that Mr.. Taylor would afterwards
} have btd upon himfelf, was not to be exnt Fed.
II has been alto commended that the coIrt
VIII not afif in giving effect to a contrat4
made by its officer, of which it would NOT de-
cree a ipecihc performance if made by the par
ny hlmieit. But the cafes are not the fame in
principle. he court will not affit A perfon
VINO has gained All UNREASONABLE legal ADVANTAGE.
oecaute ms remedy is at law, and the corr, ia
} nov sntaneied IN the proceeding. Bn, the ca
J les lay that t Or nicer inadequacy of price. the
court Will not take away his legal remedy. In
rms Gale, the aid of the court is not reeuirrd.
The decree already rendered makes it the dntv
OF the martial 70 complete the tranfaStion nm
: leis the court will fet Aide the fale. A cafe there
Iore where the court will not interfere, is no
precedent for this. For in this cafe the court
mutt interfere and fet Aide the contract Of ire
officer, or the fale Hands. "
In fuPport of the fecond part of the morton.
that the biddings Mould be opened in conf,
qnence of the offer made by Mr.. Giles, many
authorities have been cited which prove beyond
a quefion that in England, in a cafe far 1hort
or this, the biddings would be opened.
lhoie authorities, at frf, made a fronc i'm
O''N OCC1nOnS I'M
doubleday proceeded on the principle. that WHERE
iales are made under the authority of court of
chancery, the jnfice of the court is concerned
in having them made to the bet ADVANTAGE.
That principle exits, whereon a court of chan.
Gerry exits, and I was much inclined TO nurf;,e
it through the fame consequences which # had
introduced in EngIand- But on further reoec-
ton do not think myfelf at liberty to do 70.
The doctrine of opening the biddings is not in
ittelf a principle of equity, but a practice eoab.
ifhed by particular courts, in confeouence NJ
a principle, which practice enters into the con.
tract and forms its character. In confeouence
otthat practice, the contract i, in fact, ON both
tides conditional, until the report of the msfer
Is affirmed. But in Virginia, in purifying the
fame principle, the courts have efablihed = diff.
ferent practice. In Virginia the contract is alb.
iolute. The purchafer is entitled to his pur.
chafe, andcannot, recede from it. The bepe6,
or the lois is legally his, and it REQUIRES fome
,mproprlety which ~vitiates the tranfaetion r.
let It ABIDE. / will not deny that in nv opinion
the utage Of the Englih courts is to be prcfer.
red ; but IT L could introduce it, the rule 6honId
be prospective, not to affect pan tranfatt;ons.
There is'certainly much weight due to tbe
authority ofthofe cafes where, after tbc ae;rm,
ance of 4 reports, the biddinas have Neon 80