Court Opinion

ID: 5189269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 15:33:23.889734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:51.665834
License: Public Domain

Chase, J. (dissenting):
So far as appears in the record, defendant Gaffey bid on the property without having made any definite .arrangement that would justify a prudent man in assuming that he could comply with the terms of sale. The talk he had with his father was indefinite and uncertain. The talk' among the directors of the brewing company about Gaffey protecting their interests at the sale does not seem to have been backed by any plan for raising the money to make the purchase. The best that can be said of Gaffey’s position is that when he bid on the property he hoped to be able to raise money subsequent to the property being struck down to him with which to pay the amount of the bid. There was nothing done at the sale to mislead a bidder, and the appellant bid on the property with full knowledge of the terms of sale. I am unwilling to hold that such a defaulting bidder should escape entirely the consequences of his bid.
The order should be modified by striking out the ordering' part thereof and in place thereof directing that a judgment be entered against the defendant Daniel Gaffey for $2,900 in favor of the defendant which would have been entitled to receive the same if it had been paid to the referee by the bidder and was now surplus in the custody of the court, and also directing a further hearing at Special Term, on the usual notice, to determine which defendant is entitled to such judgment.
Order reversed, without costs.