Case Name: Ex parte, R. B. Wiggins
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1833-12
Citations: 1 Hill Eq. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte, R. B. Wiggins.
Judges: Johnson and O’Neall, Js., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 241–243

Head Matter:
Ex parte, R. B. Wiggins.
Where a trustee purchase at his own sale it is at the option of the parties interested without any inquiry into the circumstances, to have a resale, or to hold the trustee to his purchase. If they elect to have a re-sale, the course is to put the property up at the price bid by the trustee — if more is bid at the second sale the property is resold — if not, the trustee is held to his purchase: And such a sale is not less the sale of the trustee, because made under the order of the Court and superintendence of the Commissioner, when procured at his instance. [*354]
A bill having been filed by the assignees of Baker Wiggins, against his heirs and creditors to marshal Ms assets, the Court ordered a sale of his real estate by the Commissioner, under the superintendence of the assignees, who were directed to join in the conveyance to the purchaser. At this sale R. B. Wiggins, one of the assignees, became the purchaser of the whole estate, and afterwards filed this ^petition to confirm the sale. The Commissioner, to whom it had been referred, reported that the sale was fairly conducted — that the purchase was tona fide, and for an adequate consideration; and that the peftt-ioner was a creditor of Baker Wiggins.

Opinion:
Chancellor Johnston,
who heard the petition, at Marion, February Term, 1833, held, that the purchase "could neither be set aside nor confirmed, without knowledge of the will of other persons interested, who are not parties to this proceeding." That "according to decided cases, a trustee to sell cannot purchase, whether he is partly interested or not. If he purchases, the sale will be set aside, or he will be held to the purchase, as of course, at the option of the parties interested; and as the rule forbidding such purchases, is one of policy to prevent fraud, when there is no possibility of proving it, the inquiry is never made, whether tbe sale is or is not advantageous. " He therefore dismissed the petition, and the petitioner moved this Court to reverse his decision, and to confirm the sale.
Dargan, for the appellant.