No. 697 | 5th Cir. | Feb 7, 1899
(after stating the facts). The land brought far less than its value. But the inadequacy of the price cannot he attributed in any way to ¡Samuels. It is directly traceable to W. J. Revier, Jr., the agent and brother of J. M. Revier, the present complainant, and clearly resulted from Ins conduct and statements at the sale. The public assertion by W. J. Revier, dr., at the sale, that the debt for which the land was being sold was not due, and that the land was the homestead of J. M. Revier, — all of which was unfounded in fact, — could have had no other effect than that which was produced: that is, to deler bidders, and to cause the land to be sold for an inadequate price. We have examined the matter of the alleged irregularity of the proceedings under the attachment. In our opinion, it was not necessary, under the procedure of the state of Texas in cases of attachment, for the sheriff to require W. J. Revier, Jr., as the agent of his brother, to point out property upon which the attachment could he levied; nor was it necessary for the sheriff to levy first on personal property.
The question next occurs whether, when the proceedings leading to a judicial sale are regular, the sale will be set aside for mere inadequacy of price. Cases have been cited in behalf of the appellees in which, irregularity having been found in the proceedings, and the price being inadequate, judicial sales have been set aside. Oases may, perhaps, he found where the inadequacy of the price was so gross (hat the courts, in setting aside the sales, contented themselves with proof of very slight irregularity in the proceedings. But in all of the case's of this character we find that, as plain reason required, the irregularity or the fault involved was not chargeable to the defendant in execution. It would require no authorities to persuade a, court to set aside a judicial sale for inadequacy of price, if the court became satisfied that the inadequacy of price was the result of the misdoings of the plaintiff in execution. We have been cited to no case in which a judicial sale has been set aside for inadequacy of price, caused, as in the case at bar, by the misdoings of the representative of the defendant in execution. The sale took place in January, 1893. Samuels filed his action of trespass to try title in December, 1893. That action is still pending. This equity cause was commenced in May, 1896. The laches of the appellees in allowing such a lapse of time before the bringing of this suit is an additional circumstance against them. We are of opinion that the appellees are not entitled to the relief they pray for in their hill of