Case Name: Henry D. Leslie, as Ancillary Receiver of the Casey Machine and Supply Company, Plaintiff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-05
Citations: 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry D. Leslie, as Ancillary Receiver of the Casey Machine and Supply Company, Plaintiff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Defendant.
Judges: Peatt, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 76
Pages: 71–74

Head Matter:
Henry D. Leslie, as Ancillary Receiver of the Casey Machine and Supply Company, Plaintiff, v. Henry M. Goodhue, Defendant.
Sale by a receiver [appointed by a Court of Chancery — action by the receiver against a bidder for the difference between his bid and the price finally obtained.
The receiver of a corporation, appointed by the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, and subsequently appointed ancillary receiver by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, put up for sale in the State of New York, by order of the Court of Chancery, certain personal property of the corporation by the terms of sale ten per cent cash was to be paid by the purchaser, the sale was not to be binding until confirmed by the Court of Chancery, and, if confirmed by the chancellor and not completed by the purchaser, the receiver was authorized to resell, and hold the purchaser for the difference in price.
One Goodhue bid at the sale, but did not pay the ten per cent cash; no application was made to the Court of Chancery to confirm the sale, or to compel Goodhue to complete his bid, but the receiver put the property up for sale again, when it brought less than Goodhue’s bid; this last sale was confirmed by the Court of Chancery, and was completed.
The receiver thereafter brought an action against Goodhue to recover the difference between the two bids, as damages for breach of contract.
Held, that the receiver had no cause of action, there being no contract betu een him and the bidder (Dykman, J., dissenting).
Motion by the plaintiff, Henry D. Leslie, as ancillary receiver of the Casey Machine and Supply Company, for a new trial, upon exceptions ordered to be heard at the General Term in the first instance, by an order made upon the dismissal of the complaint at the Richmond Circuit, and entered in the office of the clerk of Richmond county on the 27th day of September, 1892.
Alfred A. Gardner, for the plaintiff, receiver.
Eugene Van Voorhis, for the defendant.

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 and 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. Colyer, 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.
Peatt, J., concurred.