Case Name: WILLIAM S. HUNTINGTON, TRUSTEE, &c., vs. ROBERT J. WALKER ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1876-09
Citations: 2 MacArth. 479
Docket Number: No. 1692
Parties: WILLIAM S. HUNTINGTON, TRUSTEE, &c., vs. ROBERT J. WALKER ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 9
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
WILLIAM S. HUNTINGTON, TRUSTEE, &c., vs. ROBERT J. WALKER ET AL.
In Equity. —
No. 1692.
I. The purchaser of real estate sold under an order of court by a trustee must pay interest on the deferred payments from the day when the premises were struck off to him.
II. The purchaser at such sale is entitled to the rents of the premises from the same time, instead of from the confirmation.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
The stipulated facts in this case show that the complainant, acting as trustee, and under an order of the court, and in pursuance of an advertisement, sold at public sale, to Alfred M. Hoyt, square 720, in the city of Washington, for the sum of $22,010, he being the highest and best bidder therefor. The sale was made on the 31st day of May, 1875, and among the advertised terms of sale notice was given that the-deferred payments would bear interest from the day of sale On the 9th day of 'September following the court passed an order ratifying the sale, with a proviso that if, within ten days, D. L. Walker, one of the defendants, should pay the trustee $23,010 for the property, one-fourth in cash, &c., the sale should be set aside. The time limited in this order having expired, and no one having offered to pay the trustee the said last-mentioned sum, the sale to Mr. Hoyt was confirmed absolutely on the 30th day of September, 1875. The trustee thereupon prepared the notes for the deferred payments, to the effect that they should bear interest from the 30th of May, when the property was struck off, .instead of the date of the final confirmation. The purchaser, on the other hand, claimed that the interest should commeifce from the confirmation, and it was agreed to submit this question to the court. The application was referred, to be heard here in the first instance.
A. S. Worthington for trustee.
T. W. Bartley for purchaser.

Opinion:
By the Court :
We think that when a sale of property is ordered by the •court, and the sale takes place in pursuance of an advertisement such as- was published in the present case, the notes for deferred payment should be dated on the day the propertv was struck off to the purchaser, and should bear interest from such time. We also think that the purchaser is entitled to the rents of the premises if they are occupied by a tenant intermediate the sale and confirmation. The trustee must therefore credit the purchaser with the amount of any rents he may have collected in the mean time.
Ordered accordingly.