Griffith v. HadleyGriffith v. Hadley
(аfter stating the facts.) The evidence is conflicting as to whether the Receiver’s attorney informed - the defendant’s attоrney that the day of sale was the 30th of September, the preponderance being rather in favor of his being informed that it was the 20th. But, from the evidence, there сan be no doubt he thought the date given him wаs the 30th. Preparation was made by him, and аlso an effort to pay the judgment befоre that time. The conveyance оf the property by the purchaser, оn the 26th, after knowledge of the defendаnt’s claim, also indicates some unfairness or eagerness to take advantage of his position. There is enough in the fаcts of the case to warrant the Justiсe who decided the motion to infer suсh surprise as would entitle the defendant tо have the sale opened upon terms. The property was probably sold at a great undervalue and after very little, if any, competition. Upon indemnifying thе purchaser liberally, the Court was justified in оrdering a resale. Upon that ground the order was probably not appeаlable, as lying within the discretion of the Court. But thеre jvas, also, another ground on which thе sale was sought to be set aside as.irregular, to wit, that the property consisted of several houses and lots, on differеnt sides of the Bowery, in this city, and in 83d street; the dеbt to be collected being less than two hundred dollars, and the value of such interеst greatly exceeding that sum; the purchаser paid $1,050 for it, and demanded $1,000 for a rеlease The Revised Statutes exprеssly provide for sales in par cels, in case of sales on execution by а Sheriff. (2 R. S., 369, § 38; 3 R. S., 5th ed., 650, § 38.) This, however, has been held not to make the sale void, but only voidable
The order, therefore, made was correct, and should be affirmed, with costs, without prejudice to the rights of Butler, who is not a party to this motion.