The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-05-21
THEY ARGUED ON EMBEDDING.
ATTORNEYS DISCUSS RIGHTS OF
BIDDERS AT PUBLIC SALES.

MIR. X. n. Richards Holds That the
Attorneys for the Parsons Heirs
Were Justified in Protecting the
Interests of Their Clients by See
ing That the Parsons Property
Drought "a Fair Price-Mr. Adams
Holds That 1t Was Not Legitimate
for Them TO Bid Unless They In
tended to Become BOnafde Pur-
chasers.
The petition of the executors of the
will of Sarah NJ. Parsons for confirmation
of the recent sac of the real estate at
Liberty and Price streets to Mr.. T. H.
McMHlen was argued at length in the Su-
perior Court yesterday. AS has been pre-
viously published, Mr. Mcmillan declined
to make good his bid on the ground The
price of the property had been run up
on him by Mr.. George W. Owens, attor-
ney for one of the heirs, and. that under
the laws relating TO putting and bye
bidding this relieved him from taking the
property.
At the former hearing of the case it
standing between Mr.. Owens and Mr.. A.
c. Wright, each representing one of the
heirs, that the property should not be al
lowed to go at a sacrifice and that it
had been agreed that Mr.. Owens should
bid on the property for the purpose of
preventing a sacrifice Both Messrs. Ow-
ems and Wright said that While their
clients did not want the property and the
bids were made in their interests, had the
property been knocked down to them that
their clients would have made good the
bid. They held that they were entirety
within the law in protecting the interests
of their clients.
MIR. r. r. Richards, who represents the
executors, argued the case at length, and
cited authorities to show that il was en-
TREY legitimate for attorneys and others
Interested to prevent property from being
sold at sacrifice, when sold by order of
the court. He commended that instead of
being subject to criticism for having act
ed as they did, that on the contrary they
were deserving of commentator, and
would have been negligent of their clients
interests had they acted otherwise.
MIR. S. B. Adams, who represented Mr..
Mcmillan, took just the opposite position.
He held that the actions of Messrs. Owens
and Wright, while not discreditable to
them in any way, came within the pro-
visions of the laws relating to putting and
bye-bidding, and that this being the case
his client could not be compelled to ac-
cept the property at the pisces at which
il had been knocked down 10 him, as evil
deuce that The result Of the alleged putting
had been unjust to his client. Mr.. Adams
said il had been shown that the entire
property had been offered at private sale
some time previous to the recent
sale for $4,000, and that the only
| reason the sale had not been closed at
that figure was that the prospective pur-
| chaser had not been able to make such
arrangements as would enable him to pur-
chase the property. At public sale the
| property had been knocked down to Mr..
Mcmillan at nearly 5000 more than he
| could undoubtedly have purchased it at
! private sale Mr.. Adams contended that
| if the attorneys for the heirs were deter
mined to prevent the property going at a
sacrifice, It was their duty to have put
| an upset price on the property, and thus
| given public notice to all bidders that the
property would not be sold below a GER
| tain price.
The hearing consumed the entire day in
the court The only new witness put up
was Mr.. H. E. Wilson, who testified that
| he had heard Mr.. Mcmillan say that he
| had paid good price for the property,
but he did not mind doing that when he
| wanted a piece of property. Judge Fal-
| ligant took the papers in the case and re-
| served his decision.