Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1893-1895, 1895-07-22

conclusively show that, while court
cannot by . subsequent order modify
the essential features Of final decree IL
does poesess the inherent right OF
changing the time Of its execution.
This right being granted 1t must, upon
principle, be conceded that q court pos
sesses an equal right to modify by
subsequent order the manner OF the
enforcement Of its DEGREES, for II re-
quires no more power to modify the
manner, than it does to change tue
time Of executing them.
In Turner v. l. b. & w. Ry. Co., s
Blssell $50, Mr.. Justice Drummond In
commenting on the modification OF n
decree by q subsequent order, SAID;
THE facts were that the original de-
cree was entered on the 18th OF July,
1877, and the amendment was made in
May, 1878. l admit the rule which de
nies the power of the court over de
cree after the term when 1t was rem
dered. 1t cannot change or alter the
essential parts of the decree. But
what was the order made by the court
In May, 1878? 1t is termed further
direction for the execution OF the de
cree Heretofore entered. The original
decree provided that the property
should be sold on q certain number OF
days publication. That was changed
by the amendment. The original de-
cree provided for the distribution of
the funds arising from the sale In a
particular manner. That was changed
by the amendment Of May, 1878. But
these things did not affect the substance
Of the decree. OF the right of the court
to make that order, / cannot doubt.
This case was appealed TO the supreme
court of the United States where Mr..
Justice Harlan in rendering the deci
sion upon review of the foregoing OBJ.
lection, with others, said: I'VE do not
stop to consider whether these objec-
tions find any support in the record,
since it 10 sufficient to say that, if any
such errors exist, they necess irily in
here, some In the final decree of fore
closure and sale, and others in the
orders which preceded it. They can
not be examined upon an appeal merely
from the order confirming the report of
sale, Our authority extends, as we
have shown, no further than to the
examination Of the exceptions filed by
appellants to the report of the sale,
from the order confirming which this
appeal is taken. And some of these
exceptions plainly have reference, not
to the sale itself, but to the 6Oal decree
| of foreclosure; such for instance, as
that the terms of sale were too oneruu,
that the property was sold subject t
various claims, the amount of whici
was wholly uncertain; and that III
court had no jurisdiction in the case.
Turner v. Farmers Loan d Trust Co.
106 U. 8. 662
The modification complained OF q
not, in our judgement, alter or vary th
essential parts of the original decree
and were sHch as the court had author
ity to make in carrying it into execu
ton.
We will now examine the objection
to the confirmation. 1t Is contende,
that the court having instructed th,
sheriff to sell the property between the
18th and the 22nd days of December
1894, that officer had no license to SCI
on either of said days and hence q sal,
by him on the 22nd of that month was
void. However this may be, the coun
has ratified the acts Of its agent and
confirmed the sale. "The court" says
Mr.. Freeman in his work on Void Ju.
dicial Sales (s42) "may, If it deems best,
ratifiy various irregularities In the pro
| ceediDgs. III the officer changed the
/ lCi LIE vi bhO baiCy bhC COuIl n1hH IdlllN
his action, provided the terms, rs
changed, are such as the court had
power to impose in the first instance.
The court in such cases may do by in
direction what 1t could do directly, and
since it could haYe ordered the sale on
the day it occurred 1t had power to rat
lfy tbe act Of the officer, If it be con.
ceded that he exceeded his authority
by selling the property on the day
named. (Jacobs' Appeal, % Pa. st.
447; Emery v. VrOman, 10 Wis. 1850;
Thorn v. Ingram, rs ARK. 68
The most Important contention is
that the property and franchises offered
for sale were OF the value Of $S, 600, 900;
that the railA, rolling stock aud miscel-
laneous property alone mot including
the land or buildings, were worth
t4bO, ,OOOi and that the bid OF 800, 900 Is
30 grossly inadequate As to shock the
conscience and raise the inference of
unfalrness, fraud, mistake or surprise.
"Ihe uniform current OF the au.
thOritles," says the court In MATlatt V,
Warwick, ls N. j. T.. los, "selIlss that
mere inadeG uaoy ofprice, where parties
stand on an equal footing, aud there
are no confidential relations between
them, is not itself sufficient 10 set aside
q sale, unless the insdequAey is go gross
as 10 be proof OF fraud, OF 10 shsek tue.
Judgment aud the conscience" la case
al bar Il 10 not claimed that the parties
did not stand on an equal footing,
that there were any confidential Tsls-
lions existing between them, on that
there 10 any pfosf " fraud, aud hence
the lnadequeney su uffioient 10 set sside
the sale must be ~ gross a. b. shock
the oopseisnes, We lave examined
the transcript before us la ysin 10 hnd
any syidsnee Vt the value of ths said
property and franchises, The TeaeiYeT
up0n bic appointment made al
invent ory of AL thai oams 10 bis pOses
sion, but be does DOT sppE0ys q single
sTtlele QF give the value in EFnss "a,
espl ~ some unsnsd material on hgnd.
There was 40 eYldenes befoTs ths
trial uonri ~ the value, snd u would
10 extremely dinioult foTus 20 eoneluds
Pat tbs BID Was lnsdequsts pn,
w 10 hsfs some sgidsnos
upQn which ihe oonelusion
ean hs based, u 10 ssid that sonle "a
porte wsIs sppolpled by e0mniiiiss vi
tue hoAlh0ldeFs ~ ekAlnine ths pTop-
gIlE And alfllalaa lfa yalua ~. ~.