The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-05-16
PRACTICE OF BYE-BIDDING.
SAID TO BE COMMON, But NOT
WARRANTED IN LAW.

Property should Bring Good
Price-Thts, He Considers, Re
Iicves Him of Any Legal or Moral
Obligation to Make Good His bid.
The hearing of the matter at issue be-
tween Mr.. T. II. Mcmillan and the eXecu-
tors of the Parsons estate will be re-
sumed in the Superior Court Saturday
The case is one of Considerable interest
inasmuch as the practice of pulling" or
assisting property to bring more at public
sale than it otherwise would by means of
bids from parties who have no intention
of becoming purchasers is not uncommon
1t is frequently remarked at public sales
that the prices have been run up by
! the auctioneer More often it is the inter
ested parties who help the sale along by
bids through outsiders, taking the chances
of having the property thrown back on
their hands. While the practice is not
! considered discredjtable, though it might
easily made so, it is claimed not TO be
warranted in law
Mr.. McMilan's claim is that the proper
ty at Liberty and Price streets, which was
sold by the executors of the will of the
late Mrs. Parsons, and bought in by him
for $4,000, was run up by the attorneys
for the heirs, with the agreed purpose of
making it bring a good price, and that
! such being the facts in the case he cannot
! be required to make good his bid
Mr. Mcmillan does not think that the
report published in Sundays Morning
| News did entire justice to his side of the
case, as the inference might be drawn
| t1,at. II al Ha,l NOT wei
He makes the following statement of the
circumstances, which led TO his refusal
| to make good his bid and the facts which
were developed at the hearing:
1.-The property was advertised by the
executors for sale al public outcry to the
highest and best bidder. l understood, OF
course, that this meant the highest real
bidder, who would bid as a prospective
purchaser. The vacant lot was knocked
down to me at 1895 and the improved
| property at $4,000. The latter piece of
! property was run up on me by Mr. George
| w Owens, he and / making the last of
a number of bids. 1 supposed a the time
that Mr.. Owens was real bidder and did
not dream that he was bidding for the
owners under an arrangement not to let
the property go below a certain price L
learned the real truth about the matter
! Immediately after the sale by a remark
which 1 overheard MIR. Owens make to a
bystander. This remark caused me to
believe that had been subjected to com
petition which was not lawful or just to
me- After advising with my counsel as
to the law of the case, I concluded that
/ was under no obligation, legal or moral,
to take this property. The bidder for the
| vacant lot was DR.. Corbin, and it occurred
| to me, in thinking over the matter after
the sale, and after had learned the facts
as to the improved lot that he had come
from point where Mr.. Owens was stand
ing just before he had begun to bid
against me. / thought it not unlikely
that he had also represented the heirs in
his bidding and that I would, before TAX
ing this lot put him on the stand and
| inquire as to the truth of the matter. I
did not care much as TO this vacant lot,
but, since I had determined upon having
a judicial inquiry as to the improved lot,
| 1 concluded TO have both sales invesd-
gated. Just as soon as DIR. Corbn stat
ed that he had represented himself alone
and had bid for himself, l Immediately
stated, through my counsel, that l would
take and pay for this lot. The facts as
90 the bidding for the improved lot were
| what l expected after hearing the remark
| referred to-
''My understanding of the matter was
fully sustained by the evidence. Mr.. A.
c. Wright testified that before the sale
y.
and Mr.. Owens, representing the other
agreed that both pieces of property should
be made to bring together as much as
| $15,00C; that Mr.. Owens would bid to carry
! out this purpose and that their clients did
not wish the property, but proposed to
bid that much to prevent what he under
stood would otherwise be its sacrifice Mr.
Owens did not deny this understanding
with Mr.. Wright, and testified that he was
not bidding for himself, that his client did
| not wish the property, but his instructions
| authorized him to bid such an amount as
he thought proper to prevent its sacrifice
and that, had he bid it in for his client
he would have had the right to expect
Mr.. Wright's client to share this bid and
responsibility with his client. Under Mr.
| Owens testimony, supplemented by that
of Mr.. Wright's, the conclusion was ire
sstible that if the property had been
| knocked down to Mr.. Owens bid, he, per-
sonally, had no idea of taking the prop
| erty, and that it would have been knocked
down, practically, for the account of the
| two owners. These two owners represent
ed the bulk of the interest in the proceeds
| the only other interest being that of the
two executors to the extent of their COM
missions and costs. The result would
! have been that there would have been
no sale at all, because these two owners
were at outs, had had warm litigation. and
the chief purpose of this sale was to di-
vide the property. They did not expect to
hold it together, and doubtless would not
| have done so.
1T am advised by my counsel that heirE
or other owners interested in property.
| may have an upset price put upon the
property below which they are unwilling
to have it sod and at which they -.oild
prefer to take il themselves rather than
| have it sacrificed, but that this upset price
| must be stated at the sale, so that other
bidders may be put upon notice, and they
may bid above this upset price or not as
they see fl after knowledge of the fact
But that these owners cannot conceal their
| identity in a representative, who is APP
parentiy bidding for himself and whose
bids are apparently those of a prospective
A Strong Fertilization.
Fortifv bodvapainst disease