Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of James P. Philip, Respondent, for Resale of Mortgaged Premises under a Judgment of Foreclosure. William Palmatier et al., Substituted Trustees, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-03-06
Citations: 220 N.Y. 644
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of James P. Philip, Respondent, for Resale of Mortgaged Premises under a Judgment of Foreclosure. William Palmatier et al., Substituted Trustees, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 644–645

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of James P. Philip, Respondent, for Resale of Mortgaged Premises under a Judgment of Foreclosure. William Palmatier et al., Substituted Trustees, Appellants.
Foreclosure sale — refusal of purchaser to complete — when necessary to readvertise property for sale at public auction.
Where the purchaser at a judicial sale in foreclosure refuses to complete Ms purchase it is necessary to readvertise and again offer the property for sale at public auction, in the absence of a statement in the terms of sale or by the referee at the time the sale was made, that in case the purchaser failed to complete, the property would again be offered for sale at a specified time or place.
Matter of Philip, 176 App. Div. 925, affirmed.
(Argued February 27, 1917;
decided March 6, 1917.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 9, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term setting aside a sale of mortgaged premises and directing a resale.
The following questions were certified: “ (1) Was the referee appointed by the judgment of foreclosure herein without power or authority to resell the mortgaged premises and property at his office on April 25, 1916, under the terms of sale set forth in the record, without again publishing and posting notice of sale, upon the default of James P. Philip in consummating his purchase of the premises and property on his bid, and upon the facts shown in the record ? (2) Was the resale of the mortgaged premises and property by the referee on April 25, 1916, upon the facts shown in the record a valid sale ?”
Frank H. Osborn for appellants.
Marcus T. Hun for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The terms Of sale did not contain a provision that in case the purchaser failed to complete, the property would be again offered for sale at a specified time or place, nor was any statement to this effect made by the referee to the persons attending the sale at the time the property was bid off by Philip. In the absence of such statement in the terms of sale or by the referee at the time the sale was made, it necessitated when Philip refused to complete his purchase that the property should be readvertised and again offered for sale at public auction.
The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs, and the first question certified answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
HlSCOCK, Oh. J., OtJDDEBACK, HOGAN, POUND, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ., concur; Chase, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.