Case Name: Hurst et al. v. Fisher et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-05-07
Citations: 64 Ohio St. 530
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hurst et al. v. Fisher et al.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 64
Pages: 530–532

Head Matter:
Hurst et al. v. Fisher et al.
Land bid in at sheriff’s sale — By one who served as appraiser— And prevented other bidders — Such sale may be set aside on petition of judgment debtors — Even though purchase money paid into court and deed delivered.
Where land has been bid in at sheriff’s sale, by one who, unknown to the judgment debtor, owner of the land, had served as appraiser, and it is shown besides, that such bidder undertook to prevent others from bidding at the sale, and that the land brought less than its probable value, such sale will, on the petition of the judgment debtor, be set aside and a new sale ordered even though the purchase money has been paid into court and distributed, a deed delivered by the sheriff, and no guaranty is afforded that the land will bring more at a re-sale.
(Decided May 7, 1901.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Ashland county.
The action below7 w7as commenced by petition in the common pleas to set aside a sale of lands by the sheriff. The case w7as tried on appeal in the circuit court, where findings and judgment were rendered for the defendants. It appears from the record that the defendant in error, George Fisher, was one of the freeholders selected by the sheriff as appraisers, and that he, with his father-in-law7 and brother-in-law7 appraised the land; that it w7as sold by the sheriff upon that appraisement and was brought by said Fisher at that sale. The evidence introduced by plaintiffs w7as to the effect that Fisher contemplated being a purchaser before he urns called as an appraiser; that he endeavored to prevent, and probably did prevent some others from bidding, and that he made an ar rangement with a prospective bidder to share the purchase with him. Also that the land sold for less than its real value, and no evidence was offered by defendants in contradiction of either of these facts, nor did Fisher go upon the stand at all to testify. The sale was reported to the court and approved, and the purchase money paid in and distributed to lien-holders, and a sheriff’s deed made to Fisher, but the owners of the land (the judgment debtors) did not have notice at that time, nor until just before the commencement of the present suit to set aside the sale, that the purchaser, Fisher, was an appraiser on whose appraisal the land was sold, nor of the facts respecting his efforts to prevent competition at the sale.
Wm. T. Devor and E. IT. 'Noel, for plaintiffs in error.
E. A. Myhnmis, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
By the Court :
Where it appears, as in the present case, that the successful bidder at a sheriff's sale of land was one of the appraisers on whose appraisal the land was valued for sale; that the purchaser attempted to discourage other bidders at the sale and prevent them from bidding; that the land probably did not bring its real value, and that the owners (the judgment debtors) Avere not aAvare of the facts as stated until after confirmation of the sale, execution of a deed and distribution of the purchase money, a proper enforcement of the. policy expressed in section 5404, Revised Statutes, requires that the sale be set aside and the land again offered for sale, even though no guaranty is offered that the land will bring more. The remedy may prove somewhat harsh upon the purchaser, but if so, he has only himself to blame for the dilemma in which he finds himself placed.
Judgment, reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error. ,
All concur.