Case Name: Henry D. Leslie, Rec'r, Pl'ff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Def't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-05-08
Citations: 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 163
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry D. Leslie, Rec’r, Pl’ff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Def’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 53
Pages: 163–165

Head Matter:
Henry D. Leslie, Rec’r, Pl’ff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Def’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed May 8, 1893.)
Contract—Failure to complete—Sale at auction—Liability for deficiency.
Plaintiff is a receiver appointed by the court of chancery of New Jersey, and also appointed ancillary receiver by the supreme court of this state, and as such sold certain property at public sale. By the terms of sale a certain sum was to be paid down, and the sale was not to be binding until the New Jersey court confirmed it. Defendant bid in the property but failed to make the payment, whereupon plaintiff immediately put it up again and sold it to another, and the latter sale was confirmed by said court. Held, that there was-no contract between plaintiff and defendant, and that an action to recover the deficiency on the resale could not be maintained.
(Dykman, J., dissents.)
Motion for a new trial on exceptions ordered to be first heard at general term, after a nonsuit
Action to recover for breach of contract by defendant in failing to complete his purchase at an auction sale of goods of a corporation of which plaintiff was receiver.
Alfred A. Gardner, for pl'ff; J. & Q. Van Voorhis (Eugene Van Voorhis, of counsel), for deft.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiff is a receiver appointed by the court of chancery of the state of New Jersey of the Casey Machine & Supply Company, a corporation of that state. He is also an ancillary receiver by order of this court. By an order of the court of chancery he put up certain corporate property in this state and the defendant bid upon it and failed to complete his bid. The property was put up again and brought less than the defendant's bid, and this action is brought to recover the difference between the two bids. The sale was not to be binding until confirmed by the chancellor, and ten per cent cash was required by the conditions of sale. The defendant did not pay the ten per cent, and no application was ever made to the chancellor either to compel the defendant to complete or to confirm the, sale; but the receiver at once, upon his default to pay the ten per cent, put up the property and sold it, and the sale was confirmed by the chancellor and was completed. The plaintiff has no cause of action. There was no contract between him and the bidder. Miller v. Collyer, 36 Barb., 250.
He was the executive agent of a court of chancery which did not empower him to make it a condition that the defendant should answer for the difference between his bid, not carried out, and a lesser bid which was. The court of chancery approved the sale at the less sum, and no opportunity was given to the defendant to be heard in the court of chancery as to his excuse for not carrying out his bid.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.