Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1839-05-23
MISCELLE A N o U s.
From the New Orleans Bulletin.
=, ,rrpDsrING TO THE PUBLIC.

.f,hs State. lately declared by Judge Eustis,
o. 1 snO Of much interest to the public, and
hasten ba sten to lay it before our readers.
W. Tive Counsel were Mr.. l.. c. Duncan for the
.,.intifr and Mr.. |. T. Preston, for defendant.
r,pnrLlrE BAHAm, wJe of Louis LIE sAss1ERR,
agpt, versus Ill. l'~i7
JOHN M. BACH, appellee.
fAnneal from 1st Judicial Dis. Court
The petitioner alleges that, with the author
~ Of her husband, she sold certain lots oil
nyyonnd 10 the defendant at public auction; that
ssbo has signed and rendered to him an authen-
tic act of sale of the property, which he refuses
nexecute She prays that the sal at auction
he decreed good and valid; that the defendant
he ordered to accept and execute the act ana
,opav the price and comply with the coha'-
lions of the sale. .,
The defendant, among other matters OF de-
fence, charges that the plaintiff by her agents
bid against him at the sale at auction, ana run
IN the property beyond the bids of the rea
Il bidders; he prays for judgment and for general
relief against the dongs of the plaintiff.
The auctioneer stated in his examination,
that the lots were limited to the sum OF SZooo
each; that this was not communicated TO tne
bdders: and that he advanced on the pids
made by others, as we understand nm, up 10
that sum; that it is customary for auctloneers,
when they put up property which is limited
10 start the sales and rise on their own oiaS
iii thew reach the limits prescribed by the
owner.
There were many real bids besides that oil
.be defendant; and in relation to the olaulllS
ofthe property, there is nothing whlch anec!S
4 the validity OF the sale, except the TACT oil MS
bidding for the owner as deduced by him'
There was judgement for the defendant anu
the plaintiff has appealed.
Our own code has provided IN express ler''lS'
for the manner in which sales at auction arc "
DO conducted. -. Lo e
The auctioneer is public ohcer-he IS ;
hound TO have from the seller the Terms anu
conditions of the sale in writing; 10 proc'ai'''
them at the sale in loud and audlole voice.
and to offer the property publicly ior Sale.
He is bound to receive the bids, ana a'tei ""'
ting a reasonable time to ascertain inc h'Sno'
bid. he is bound TO declare the person niaNing
il to be the purchaser, and the thing soiu IS au
Indicated TO him. From that time the con'rao
issubected to the same rules which govern IN th !,
ordinary contract Of SALE L. u ART ~o07
1856, 1886.
lnJ12, art 1841, it is provided that comp
nations with respect to 'sales, 10 ehhalico t"'
price by false bids or offers, or TO dePfesS, - "
false assertions, are artltices whlch 'n'a'lo0.,
she contract when practised by those w"o a.'
parties 10 it, or give rise to an ac'io" u u"'''
ages when they are not" ,on,
This provision of our laws is IN haihon
with the principles first established on inns SUI
iect in England, by Lord Mansfield, IN Inc Gus
of Roxweil VS.. Christie, (Cowp. 1901 Us W.
observed subsequently by Lord henyon' ~ IL
whole of the reasoning IN that case Is iounuo
on the noble principles OF morality ana JoS.'o,
PRINCIPLES that are calculated 10 preserve "o'
esty between man ana man.
The decision in that case mas not oeo,i ~
lowed in all cases, either in the Jurispruoen'
of England or of the United States, out VIC u
prehend that time and scrutiny VIII re'es'a
8 iish its force wherever the principles Oh Ia" al
public morals are colncldent.
Aalate as 1897, Lord Tenderdon, IN a ca
where the owner employed one person to b
Gov him. and he was only ordered to bid up 10
certain sum, said, 81 will add, that the stroI
INCLINATION of my opinion is, that If only OF
narson he employed to bid, with view TO so
The auction duty, the sale is void, unless it
announced that there is person bidding
,Lao,vner the net itself is Fraudulent" -Mc
dv a. Maxim 1873; 22 Eng. Com Law Re
a6s; list Story's Equity Jurisprudence , ~
and cases there cited. ,loI
In the case of Corrijoes VS. Messy, Y T. =,
5o7) the Supreme Court OF this state ne'1, t O.
an owner mi Oh, withdraw his property O ooo
the highest bid was accepted by the auc!'one'
But this gives the owner no right TO old; unl'
he publicly reserves to himself that right; 81 5,
less can he bid through the auctioneer'
duty of the auctioneer is to sell the properly
8 to receive the bids offered, not to make 'nei
We'd not censure the conduct oil the auc'.
Ger, in this instance, because we are aware
is the general usage, to conduct sales a. a
ton in this manner; but it is an usage wh
M we can neither Justify nor recognize, IN the
N ministra,on Of justice; it is equally opposed
public policy, and to that fairness when ou
10 exist, and which people have rlsns 10
pect, in sale Of property avoweo'y ohere'
the highest bidder !. .,
Our opinion on this subject renders u u
cessary TO examine the other question ~
s by the defendant.
II is, the refore, ordered, adjudged ano
creed, that the Judgment Of the District "
DO affirmed, with costs in both courts