Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-02-08
LEGAL.
Decisions OF the supreme Court OF
Tennessee, "a Nashville, December
Term. IS8z


Reported for the Union aud Dispatch, By S. !
| Henderson. Attorney at Law.
| In the absence Of all fraud or unfaiEness in
sale made in pursuance Of a decree, the oie
o. a larger sum IS not sufficient 20 open tn
blddings.
The settled rule in such case is, that althoug
! IL y not matter Of course TO open bidding
upon the application Of party and the otfe
OF larger sum, yet It is the duty Of the Chan
| eellOr to see that sales made under his Orde
be fairly conducted, and under such eireum
stances a. 10 insure the best price for the prop
erty sold. Therefore, there should in ever
case where such sale is set aside, be specia
circumstances rendering Il inequitable to con
firm the sale"
Margaret johnson o.. W. A. Quarles. ct al
This bill was filed in the Chancery
Court at GAINESVILLE, by complainant
] against defendant Quarles, to enforce Q
vendors lien which she had on house and
three lots in the town Of GAINESVILLE, fol
the balance of the purchase money
amounting TO S54l4 A decree was
entered at the April term, 1866,
directing a sale Of the property by
the Clerk and Master on credit Of
Of one and two year,, taking bond and Sc
curity, with interest from date. No sale
having been made in pursuance Of the de-
cree, at the April term, 1867, the decree Of
sale was renewed, and on the Doth of. J Tune,
1867, the Clerk and Master duly adyertis.
ing as directed by the decree, sold the pro-
perty at the courthouse in the town OF
GAINESVILLE, TO the highest bidder, at which
sale J.. Veal became the purchaser of three
Of the lots. The lot on which the house ia
situated, being lot No. l, at $l50I, lot No.
3 at $3.50, and lot No. 4, at 1888, and exc
cuted his note with security IA required by
the decree, which was duly reported by the
Clerk and Master TO the October term, 1867,
Of the court. During that term James Z.
Rice and VIM. A. Quarles filed their reti-
ton in said cause as follows: James F.
Rice proposes 10 advance the bid, made by
l.. Veal for the house and lot, sold by the
Clerk and Master in said cause, twenty
per cent. on the amount bid which was
$l6Ol, for a very valuable house and
lot on Main street in GAINESVILLE, and the
said J. +. Rice offers to give good security
for the amount 10 advanced, and VIM. A.
Guarles prays the court the said advance
bid OF j. +. Rice be received and the bid
dings opened" Upon this petition being
hled, the court decreed the report of the
sale be set aside and the biddings beopened
at 20 per cent. offered to be adyaeed by J,
r. Rice, from which decree Veal appealed
10 this court
The question presented for our consider
alton is, whether the Chancellor upon the
facts presented in this cause was authorized
under the rules of law applicable to such
cases, to open the biddings? We think
not. The sale was made in pursuance of
decree, at the courthouse, TO the highest
bidder. The purchaser, Veal, bid off three
OF the lots. The lot on which the house
is situated, at Sl50l. The other lots pur-
chased are adjoining.
There is no fact presented in the record
that casts the slightest suspicion on the
fairness of the sale. The question is, will
the mere advance of twenty per cent. in the
absence Of all fraud or unfairness in the
sale, be sufficient to open the biddings. The
question has been frequently before this
court and the principle seems 10 be settled,
that it If not matter of course 10 open the
biddings npon the application OF party
and the oiier OF larger sum- In the case
Of Donaldson rs. Young Il Cohen, Hum
2GG, the lands had been sold for division.
The guardian was sick and could moi al
tend, ard requested the sale 10 be post
poned, but which was declined by the
Clerk who made the sale. Young & Cohen
bought the lands for-$3500 Donaldson for
himselfand Nancy made an application to
open the hiddings, and offered to advance
$1,000. The court refused TO open the
biddings and confirmed the sale,
from which there was an appeal
The court say can application 10 the
discretion of the court TO open
the biddings in case like this will not be
yielded 10 as a matter of course, merely
on the ground of inadequacy of price, and
an offer TO advance fifty per cent. on the
bids" Many cases might be cited where
the circumstances attending a Masters
sale would be calculated TO diminish the
price Of the property 30 as 10 make it
proper 10 set aside the sale and open the
biddings, which in private sale would not
be such ground for equitable relief. The
decision Of each one must depend on its
own circumstance" The decree Of the
Chancellor was reversed and the biddings
were opened. The question came agsin
before this court in the case of Martin,
Smith q Co. Is. Sloan, Hum, 278, in
which the authorities are reviewed in that
case.
There was a mistake in the quantity of
landsOld. The petitioners were sureties for
the owners Of the land, and had d speci-
fed lien as surety. 1t was sold by a
decree for the payment OF the debt. Sloan
became the purchaser at a certain price per
sore, which, at the estimated value, brought
the amount of the debt for which they were
sureties. When run out there was a de-
felt Of fifty acres. These facts were I'M
known TO the parties al the sale. Taking
the estimated quantity, there was sufficient
TO pay the debt for which they mad lien.
Il left deficit, selling il by the acre, of
about $500. Under this state of facts, the
court opened the biddings. The court says
that, although it is not a matter of course 10
open the biddings on the application Of
party and the offer of larger sum, bnt il
IL the duty Of the Chancellor TO see that
sales under his order be fairly conducted,
and under such circumstances az will in
sure the best price for the property sold.
Each case must depend on its own circum-
stances. We do not think il is for the i'm
terest Of parties that the sale of the Master
should be set aside for slight causes Such
a practice would deter bidders, as they
would have ne assurance they would get
the property that might be struck off 10
them. There should, therefore, in every
case where such sale is set aside, be special
circumstances rendering il iuequitable 10
confirm the sale Ii is insisted a different
ruls has been established by this court ia
the case of ]. A. and +. w. Coffin Is.
Walker, ! Cold. 1874, that more advance
on the bid alone is sufficient. la that case
the report of sale had been confirmed and
It was an application to open the biddings
the purchasers were made parties; they
answered aud denied all fraud aud collu-
SION; no fraud was proven in the case; the
Chancellor opened the biddings, from which
there was an appeal. The decree Of the
Chancellor was reversed. The conrt in
commenting on the principle say "before
confirmation the biddings will be
opened for slight causes. advance
upon the price bid alone is sufficient.
This was the expression Of the special
Judge delivering the opinion Of ,he couIt.
Intended 20 refer 70 the English rule and
not necessary 10 the decision Of the case
under consideration, or intended to change
the rule heretofore adopted in this State.
In cases Of application 60 open biddings
before confirmation in such cases, the set.
tied rule is, that although il is not matter
Of ro,,Tue Ia omen hiddinps upon the ED-