Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-08-25

cation OF for whose fault the other has lawfully
scinded 1t, stands In different position. strictly
ne can recocer nothtny because he does not come
into court, as the phrase is with clean hands,"
Btsh op on Contracts, Sec. 6Sl.
1T may be asserted with confidence that party
who has advanced money or done an act In part
aud refuses to proceed to the ultimate conclusion Of
the agreement the other party being ready and will
Ing to proceed and fuAu all his stipulaons accord
Ing to the contract has neUer been sue, cd to recon
er FOR Dhdt has thus 6seM advanced or DONE
Keschun Us. EDerSton, IS Johns 1855, et seq.
The rule stated by Bishop eupra, and by Chancel-
Tor Waworth In the last cited certainly applies
to this case 1t having been determined that defend
ants failure caused o greater loss and dam
age to tho estate than the amount of his
deposit asked to be paid back to him. True, sit Ia
not usual In sales OF estates under the DEGREES OF
court to require the purchaser to make any deposit
1t 49, however, sometimes DONE" Daniel en-. PF.
p. 1852.
A sale of this kind Is not within the statute Of
frauds, and II DO enforced because tho Judgment
Of the court takes out Of the statute, and when
sale has been fairly and properly conducted and the
party IL able to complete his contract he will be held
strictly to his bargain or respond in damages ibl
The receiver could Chad the defendant been solvent)
after the tender. Of the deed to defendant, have
brought suit for the amount Of the bid and collected
It, the same as II he were the legal owner OF tho es
tate See opinion IN Armstrong Us. Vronsan,
He could also, as we have shown, secure
the right to resell, and could then, upon
the same principle, have al action
Having the amount of deposit in his hands rs re-
cever, IL is held by that officer for the court and the
right OF the defendant receiver to the can be
determined In this action, even II the defendant had
not been party to this action, this court would have
Jurisdiction over this after, for the rule is that
"Where q party becomes purchaser under decree
he submits himself to the Jurisdiction Of the court
In that suit, as to all matters connected with such
sale, relating to him In the character Of purohas-
err" ReQad rs. Red, Q Paige, SAL.
It therefore follows from the foregoing, that the
defendant 10 not entitled to have the said Ave hum
bred dollars returned to him, and his application
to have It SO returned, Is hereby denied. The re-
cever, having asked, upon his application, for con.
hrmaton of his final report, and for his discharge
that said $500 be forfeited to the estate foI
the eason among others, that the whole thereof Ia
by snid receiver az SUCH evidence was heard In
aton thereto at the last general term OF said court
aud said defendant was present. by counsel and
heard In opposition thereto, and the Same taken un-
der advsement.
After considering the same, I find that said $500
is less than the deficiency between the amount OF
last sale of said real property and tho said first sale
to defendant; that said defendant, without q valid
excuse cause defsulted at said first eae, and that
said estate lost thereby the amount of said deficiency
to-wit, the sum OF nine hundred and twenty-five
dollars, aud the costs and expenses Of the
second sale, which amounted to SIS 49, aud that
said five hundred dollars, and the whole thereof, IL
required to pay the creditors of said estate and the
expenses in the settlement Of the same.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that tho said
ve hundred dollars be, and the Same hereby is for
claim OF the defendant or any one for him to the
s4me and that the same the property of said es-
tate and is part Of the assets thereof In the hands
Of said receiver to be disposed Of by him such
provided by law. By the court,
J. L. MACDONALD, Judge Eighth District
Dated August llth, 1880,