Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-11
CONDENSED DECISIONS
-oF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE,
JACKSON: MAY TERM, 1867
REPORTED FOR THE APPEAL
BY H. CLAY KING. Esq.

No; 2O.-Banks VI. walker. From Memphis
! Chancery.
Held: /. That re there has been a
final decree in acal = setting the equities
of the parties TO tract of land, it is not
competent in a separate, subsequent
chancery providing for partition and cor
rection of boundary OF the same land, for
any party to the original suit to set up,
1 rely upon, or have corrected any errors
OF law in the original decree. The
/ remedy in such case is by appeal, writ of
error, or bill of review. 2. Where the
rights Of all the parties are fully declared
and settled, and nothing remains to be
done but to execute the decree, although
there is no decree for costs, on
the authority of Gill VS.. Creed Mss.
September term, 1866, at Knoxville; /;
| Whiting VS.. Bank Of the United States,
l3 Peters, Is; Targay VS.. Conrad,
! Howard, 204; and with a view 10 pre-
vent irreparable injury, in accordance
with the spirit of the code, allowing ap-
.peals in certain cases. Such decree is
declared to be final from which an ap-
peal or writ Of error will lie.
No. A.-Supreme Court, Jackson, June 5th, 1867.
Moore VS. Watson. From Memphis Chancery.
Under an order by consent, sale was
made of the steamboat Bostona. At the
sale, when the biddings had advanced to
the sum of $500, the last bid being by
Watson, owner Of the boat, the sale was
stopped by the attorney of the plaintiff,
and the fact reported to the court. There
after, the chancellor in vacation made
an order for sale Of said boat. Under
the said order the master in chancery
sold the boat, and the same was struck
TT 30, al Of
the bid of $500. The purchasers COM
piled with the terms of sale, and in few
days afterwards advanced their bid to
$3.50, which was reported to the court,
and the sale was confirmed by the
court. During the term at which the
sale was confirmed, Watson filed his
petition to set aside the sale to Able and
Pyne, and to have the benefits of his
first bid, and the boat decTeed to him.
Held: l. The rule is that after cODfirma-
ton, the purchaser is entitled to con-
veyance of the property sold and no
advance of the price bid, however large,
without more is sufficient to justify the
chancellor in setting aside the sale or
opening the biddings. 2. But while this
rule obtains in cases where the advance
on the bid is the only ground of relief re-
lied on, it is not applicable to cases in
which accident, mistake or fraud inter-
vene. They render void, or at least void
able the sale and whenever they ap-
pear, and especially if the purchaser is
in any way connected with them, a
court of equity viii not hesitate to
set aside the confirmation, and open
the biddings. 8. Where the sale has been
confirmed, the purchase money paid and
the term of court has closed, the pro-
eeeding to set aside the sale must be by
original bill. In this case the purchase
money had not been paid, nor had the
court which confirmed the sale to Able
and PyDe adjourned. And, although
there is no reason to believe any actual
fraud was intended by the attorney in
stopping the first sale, but in the absence
of q satisfactory reason for it, and espe-
cially when tits coupled With ths fact that
the attorney Of the plaintiff was also the
attorney Of Pyne, one Of the purchasers,
this court is forced TO hold that the effect
of his action, however well intended,
operated as a fraud anbinjury upon the
owners Of the boat, and FULLY justified
the order OF the chancellor in setting
aside the confirmation 10 Able and Pyne,
and opening the biddings. And, the
chancellor having allowed tho bid of
Watson to be received as an advanced
bid, the decree is affirmed.