Securities
B. C. COWEN vs. S. STEVENS & Co.
3 Del. 4943 Harr. 494·Delaware Superior Court·1842·DE
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
B. C. COWEN vs. S. STEVENS & Co.
Mere inadequacy of price is not a sufficient ground for setting aside a sale of land upon execution.
But gross inadequacy may be considered in connection with other objections to lh| sale.
Venditioni exponas. Sheriff returns — “Land sold, viz: No. 1 tJ Thomas Bradley for $250: part of No. 2 to Carr & Springer fo| $605; other part to T. B. for $340.” Rule to show cause why till sale of defendant’s land by the sheriff should not be set aside, o[ proof that the day of sale was very stormy, and the streams so much swollen as to render their passage dangerous; and that in consequence of this, many persons were prevented from attending, who would have given, and are now willing to give, much more for the land, which was sold at a great sacrifice, and much below its value.
Gray, for the defendants and for creditors.
Wm. H. Rogers, for plaintiff and purchasers.
[MAJORITY — Layton, Justice.]
By the Court:
Layton, Justice.
Mere inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside a sale, if conducted properly. But connected with other circumstances, the court cannot overlook the fact, when it exists, that the property has been sacrificed. It appears that the day of this [sale was rainy and inclement; that few persons, at least few bidders, were present; three persons have sworn that they were prevented from attending the sale by stress of weather; and that they would pave been bidders, and would give more for the property than it brought; that the property, which brought $1,190, is worth $2,200. ft additionally appears, that the sum for which the land sold, will hot satisfy the prior judgment of Mrs. Sewall, and of course pay nothing to the plaintiff in this execution; but if sold for what the testimony proves it to be worth, it would satisfy both. Mrs. Sewall and Ihe defendants are desirous of a new sale; but the plaintiff, having Ither security for his debt, is willing that this sale should be confirmed.
I We think, upon the whole case, that the sale should be set aside.
Sale set aside,