Appeal of Paslay, No. 17199

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTUKES; TAYLOR
Citation230 S.C. 55,94 S.E.2d 57
PartiesAppeal of R. B. PASLAY. In re Florence TURNER, Collie Gray, Moses Gray, Habard Gray, and David Gray, Petitioners-Respondents, v. Lillie BYARS, Willie Gray, Spencer Gray, Ollie Gray, Pleas Galloway, Eunice Williams, individually and as representatives of all that class of heirs, known and unknown, of Lillie Gray Howard, deceased, including children of deceased brothers and sisters of Lillie Gray Howard, and all other heirs of Lillie Gray Howard, deceased, Defendants.
Decision Date09 August 1956
Docket NumberNo. 17199

Page 57

94 S.E.2d 57
230 S.C. 55
Appeal of R. B. PASLAY.
In re Florence TURNER, Collie Gray, Moses Gray, Habard Gray,
and David Gray, Petitioners-Respondents,
v.
Lillie BYARS, Willie Gray, Spencer Gray, Ollie Gray, Pleas
Galloway, Eunice Williams, individually and as
representatives of all that class of heirs, known and
unknown, of Lillie Gray Howard, deceased, including children
of deceased brothers and sisters of Lillie Gray Howard, and
all other heirs of Lillie Gray Howard, deceased, Defendants.
No. 17199.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug. 9, 1956.

[230 S.C. 56] Paslay & Paslay, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Shannon Henson, Spartanburg, for petitioners-respondents.

STUKES, Chief Justice.

This is an action for partition in which a lot of land in Spartanburg was sold by the Master on salesday in February,[230 S.C. 57] 1956, in the usual and customary manner and pursuant to decree of the court. When the Master offered the property after regular advertisement and during the usual hours of sale, appellant bid $450. There was no other bid and the property was struck off to appellant who is described in respondents' brief as 'a stranger to the original suit.' During the afternoon of the same day restraining order of the resident Circuit Judge was served upon appellant and upon the Master whereby the latter was restrained and enjoined from delivering deed of the property in accordance with the sale, and appellant was required to show cause on February 20 why the order should not be made permanent and the property again offered for sale by the Master.

The restraining order and rule to show cause were obtained upon verified petition of the respondents which set forth the facts

Page 58

stated above and that petitioners were prepared, through their attorney, to bid $1,000 or more for the property, which is its worth, and, quoting from the petition, the attorney 'made every reasonable effort to attend the sale, but due to mechanical failure of his automobile at a distance from the place of sale, he was unable to arrive at the place of sale before 11:25 A.M. on the day of sale.' It was further alleged in the petition that $450 is a grossly inadequate price for the property, which has a rental value of at least $30 per month, and consummation of the sale would result in irreparable loss to the owners of the property. Appellant and the Master made separate returns to the rule in which the regularity of the sale was set forth, and discharge of the rule and dissolution of the injunction were prayed.

Upon hearing the returns to the rule it was recited in the order of the court that the petitioners desired to submit testimony as to the value of the property upon the issue of the adequacy of the bid, and the matter was referred to the Master for the purpose of taking and reporting testimony as to the value of the property and the adequacy of the sale price.

[230 S.C. 58] The appeal is from the refusal of the court to adjudge the returns to the rule sufficient and dissolve the order enjoining the Master from making deed to the purchaser-appellant upon his compliance with the bid, and from the contrary order of reference.

The explanation of the failure of counsel to attend the sale, which is quoted above, is manifestly insufficient to set the sale aside. The function of judicial sales would be seriously impaired if persons claiming to have been intended bidders, or attorneys or other representatives of them, were heard to say that their means of transportation failed en route. Public interest and precedent dictate the fostering of the stability of judicial sales. Wingard v. Hennessee, 206 S.C. 159, 33 S.E.2d 390. Counsel did not pursue this point in his brief on appeal, and we need not labor it.

There is therefore left in the case only the attack upon the validity of the sale upon the ground of inadequacy of consideration--that the property is worth $1,000 or more, and the successful bid was $450; and it is well settled that mere inadequacy of price (unless it shock the conscience of the court) will not vitiate a judicial sale, in the absence of other factors for which the selling officer of the successful bidder was at least in part responsible, or participated. It is not contended that any such factor is present in this case; and the disparity between the sales price and the value of the property, as alleged in the petition, does not shock the conscience of the court. Some of our prior decisions, which sustain our conclusion, will be reviewed.

The question in Young v. Teague, 1830, Bailey Eq., 13, was whether a partition sale should be set aside upon a showing that one of the heirs was prevented by mistake from entering a bid of $600 more than the successful bid of $1,008, for which the land was struck off to an outsider, who was the higher bidder. The mistake was that the contesting heir and requested her counsel to bid for her to the [230 S.C. 59] amount of the appraised value of the land, which he said he would have done but thought that the last bid was by the heir's son. However, the heir was present and instructed her son to cease bidding. It was concluded that the heir and her son had simply, quoting, 'neglected their own interests, and now wish the Court to do for them what they ought to have done for themselves.' Contrary decree of Chancellor De Saussure was reversed.

The syllabus in Coleman v. Bank of Hamburg, 1848, 2 Strob.Eq. 285, is: 'Where unfair means have not been employed to prevent competition at sheriff's sales, inadequacy of price, however great, is no ground for setting them aside.' Land was sold under execution upon a bid of one

Page 59

dollar, subject to mortgage indebtedness of about $1,500 which was announced at the sale. In his circuit decree, Chancellor Dunkin said that he was well...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Ex parte Moore, No. 3352.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 4, 2001
    ...contract should be upheld. These principles are well established. Henry v. Blakely, 216 S.C. 13, 56 S.E.2d 581 [1949]; Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 94 S.E.2d 57 Spillers v. Clay, 233 S.C. 99, 104, 103 S.E.2d 759, 761-62 (1958) (citations omitted); see also Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. ......
  • Curtis v. State, No. 25319.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 17, 2001
    ...continuing, modifying, or refusing an injunction is immediately appealable. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(4) (Supp. 2000); Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 94 S.E.2d 57 (1956) (appeal lay from the restraining order or temporary injunction). However, "[t]he rule that an appellate court limits its r......
  • Gibbs v. Kimbrell, No. 1968
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 18, 1993
    ...appealable, the Kimbrells cannot complain of unnecessary oppression. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976) as amended; see Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 64, 94 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1956) (interpreting S.C.Code of 1952 § 15-123(4)); Lamar v. Croft, 73 S.C. 407, 410, 53 S.E. 540, 541 (1906) (interpretin......
  • Wachesaw Plantation E. Cmty. Servs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Alexander, Appellate Case No. 2011-198986
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 28, 2017
    ...stability in judicial sales. "Public interest and precedent dictate the fostering of the stability of judicial sales." Appeal of Paslay , 230 S.C. 55, 58, 94 S.E.2d 57, 58 (1956).The policy of the law is to sustain judicial sales when fairly made. Under our decisions, when the auctioneer's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Ex parte Moore, No. 3352.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 4, 2001
    ...contract should be upheld. These principles are well established. Henry v. Blakely, 216 S.C. 13, 56 S.E.2d 581 [1949]; Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 94 S.E.2d 57 Spillers v. Clay, 233 S.C. 99, 104, 103 S.E.2d 759, 761-62 (1958) (citations omitted); see also Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. ......
  • Curtis v. State, No. 25319.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 17, 2001
    ...continuing, modifying, or refusing an injunction is immediately appealable. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(4) (Supp. 2000); Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 94 S.E.2d 57 (1956) (appeal lay from the restraining order or temporary injunction). However, "[t]he rule that an appellate court limits its r......
  • Gibbs v. Kimbrell, No. 1968
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 18, 1993
    ...appealable, the Kimbrells cannot complain of unnecessary oppression. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976) as amended; see Appeal of Paslay, 230 S.C. 55, 64, 94 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1956) (interpreting S.C.Code of 1952 § 15-123(4)); Lamar v. Croft, 73 S.C. 407, 410, 53 S.E. 540, 541 (1906) (interpretin......
  • Wachesaw Plantation E. Cmty. Servs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Alexander, Appellate Case No. 2011-198986
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 28, 2017
    ...stability in judicial sales. "Public interest and precedent dictate the fostering of the stability of judicial sales." Appeal of Paslay , 230 S.C. 55, 58, 94 S.E.2d 57, 58 (1956).The policy of the law is to sustain judicial sales when fairly made. Under our decisions, when the auctioneer's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT