Case Name: Alice Crocker et al., Respondents, v. Ervin G. Gollner et al., Impleaded, etc., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-10-28
Citations: 135 N.Y. 662
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alice Crocker et al., Respondents, v. Ervin G. Gollner et al., Impleaded, etc., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Alice Crocker et al., Respondents, v. Ervin G. Gollner et al., Impleaded, etc., Appellants.
The court has power on motion to relieve a purchaser on sale under judgment in a foreclosure suit, and where facts are shown sufficient to call upon the court to exercise its discretion, its determination is not reviewable here.
(Argued October 17, 1892;
decided October 28, 1892.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made July 22, 1892, which affirmed an order of the Special Term denying a motion to compel a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to complete his purchase, and releasing the purchaser from his purchase.
The following is the opinion in full:
“ Appeal from an -order of the General Term, which affirmed an order denying a motion to compel the purchaser at the sale in foreclosure to complete his purchase, and relieving him from his bid. The motion was made by the defendants, who were the mortgagors. Assuming that they had an interest in the sale, which would give them a standing in court to insist upon such a motion, a fact about which some doubt fairly exists, in view of a general release executed by them, after the mortgage sale, to the purchaser, this court will not review the order they complain of. In the affidavits submitted in opposition to their motion, there appeared facts which, while not perhaps exhibiting an imperfect title, still were sufficient in their nature, and as, in part, occurring after the judgment of sale in foreclosure, to move the court to relieve the purchaser from his agreement to take the property hid ofi.
“ The court had the undoubted power to control the proceedings in the foreclosure action, and, with all the facts before it upon which its action was invoked in behalf of each party, the motion of the defendants was denied, and the purchaser was relieved from going on with his agreement. It was a matter resting in its discretion, and we will not review its action here.
“ The appeal should be dismissed, -with costs.”
Alfred It. Page for appellants.
William O. Beeeher and Brewster Kissam for respondents.

Opinion:
Gray, J., reads for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.