Camden v. Mayhew
Decision Date | 14 January 1889 |
Citation | 9 S.Ct. 246,129 U.S. 73,32 L.Ed. 608 |
Parties | CAMDEN v. MAYHEW et al. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a final order in the suit, in the court below, of Mayhew, etc., v. West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Company, etc., requiring the appellant, Camden, to pay the difference between the amount bid by him for certain real estate offered for sale at public auction, under the decree in that suit, and the amount the same property brought on a resale had because of his refusal to comply with the terms of his bid. In the order of resale the court reserved for future determination the question as to his liability for any deficiency in the amount the property might bring. The history of the proceedings out of which the present appeal arises, so far as it is necessary to be stated, is as follows: By a decree rendered, November 17, 1883, in the above suit, it was adjudged that the West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Company was indebted in specified amounts to various creditors, who were entitled to be paid out of the property in question, according to certain priorities, and that upon its failure to pay them within a prescribed time the property should be sold at public auction, 'upon the terms cash in hand on the day of sale.' The decree shows that William D. Thompson, Richard A. Storrs, and Heman Loomis held debts that were to be first paid, equally and ratably, out of the proceeds of sale. The other debts, made liens upon the property by the decree, were held by James H. Carrington, A. C. Worth, W. H. Beach, the Toledo National Bank, R. S. Blair, Benjamin B. Valentine, and Heman Loomis. Before the property was offered for sale, a writing was prepared, purporting in its caption to be an 'agreement made this ___ day of November, 1883, between J. N. Camden, J. H. Carrington, W. H. Beach, A. C. Worth, Toledo National Bank, R. S. Blair, B. B. Valentine, and Heman Loomis.' It provided, among other things, that Camden should purchase the property, when sold under the decree, for the mutual benefit of 'the parties hereto,' if it sold for a sum not exceeding the aggregate amount of the claims against it, including interest and costs; that if he bought, he should, as agent and trustee of the parties, apply their claims in payment of the purchase money required at the sale, and place on record a declaration of trust showing that the property was held by him in trust for the payment of said debts, but that it should belong to him in fee-simple, when he paid them off; the rents, issues, and profits thereof, after deducting necessary expenses, to be applied by the trustee as follows: This writing was signed by all the parties named in its caption, except Beach and the Toledo National Bank.
It should be here stated that before any sale took place several judgment creditors of the West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Company were allowed to intervene in the cause by petition, each asserting a right to have his demand paid out of the proceeds; some of them claiming priority over any creditor whose debt had been specifically provided for by the decree. On the 1st of May, 1884, the property was offered by commissioners for sale at public auction, and Charles H. Shattuck became the purchaser at the price of $163,000, although he was at the time special receiver of the rents, profits, and product arising therefrom. He was personally interested in his bid to the extent of about $20,000. Who his associates were, is not disclosed by the record. The sale was duly reported; the commissioners receiving from Shattuck on the day of sale the entire amount bid by him. William P. Thompson and Oliver H. Payne, with William N. Chancellor as their surety, having executed a bond conditioned that if the property was resold they would bid the sum of $173,000, and having deposited the sum of $10,000 as additional security, the court directed a resale, and required the commissioners to return to the purchaser (which they did) the moneys theretofore received from him. The next sale occurred on the 1st day of October, 1884, when Thompson and Payne, by Camden, acting as their agent, bid the sum of $173,000. But Camden bid, in his own name, the sum of $173,050, and being the highest bidder, was declared the purchaser. In their report of sale the commissioners state: The "paper" here referred to was a letter from Loomis, in which he notified Camden that the latter would be held liable if he did not buy the property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the writing of November, 1883.
On the 6th of October, 1884, Camden filed his petition in said suit, in which he states that it was distinctly agreed by all whose names are mentioned in its caption that he should, as their agent, purchase the property, and that each of them did, in person or by their representatives, assent to that contract, and its terms. He alleges: Exceptions were filed by Carrington, Worth, Beach, the Toledo National Bank, Valentine, and Blair to the report of sale, and, on their...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ballard v. Hunter
-
Ingram Day Lumber Co. v. Robertson
... ... it was, and the court could have compelled him to make it ... good by rule or attachment. Camden v. Mayhew, 129 ... U.S. 73, L.Ed. 608; Allen v. Martin, 61 Miss 78; ... Mitchell v. Harris, 43 Miss. 314; Patterson v ... Josselyn, 43 ... ...
-
Cooper v. Ryan
...113, 121; 35 Ark. 365; 39 Ark. 238; 29 Ark. 351. The sale ordered was improper. Sand. amp; H. Dig., sect; 5859; 31 Ark. 229; 37 Ark. 39; 129 U.S. 73. The sale was not advertised. 65 Ark. 142; 51 Ark. 34; 61 Ark. 259; 48 Ark. 238. The notice of sale improperly described the property. Rorer, ......
-
In re Receivership of Great Western Beet Sugar Co.
... ... 54, 69 N.W. 388; Zantzinger v ... Pole, 1 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 204; Porter v ... Graves, 104 U.S. 171, 26 L.Ed. 691; Camden v ... Mayhew, 129 U.S. 73, 9 S.Ct. 246, 32 L.Ed. 608; Walker ... v. McLoud, 204 U.S. 299, 27 S.Ct. 293, 51 L.Ed. 495.) ... The ... ...