Crowley v. Hyde
| Decision Date | 09 January 1875 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 589 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jeremiah Crowley v. Henry D. Hyde & another, assignees |
Argued November 10, 1874
Suffolk. Contract for money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff's use. In the Superior Court judgment was ordered for the defendants on agreed facts in substance as follows, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
The defendants, as assignees of a bankrupt, sold a parcel of his real estate, subject to certain mortgages, at public auction and the plaintiff was the purchaser thereof. The sum now sued for was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants' agent in compliance with the terms of the sale requiring $ 600 to be paid down by the purchaser. Notice of the sale was given but not twenty days before the sale, as required by General Order 21 of the Supreme Court of the United States. The defendants offered to tender the plaintiff a good and sufficient deed of the property within the period of fifteen days, but the plaintiff waived the tender, and stated that he made no objection to the title, but only declined to take the deed and complete the purchase because of his inability to pay certain mortgages due on the property, and subject to which the property was sold. At the time he waived a tender of the deed, the plaintiff had had the title examined, but this did not include the doings of the assignees in advertising and selling the property, and he did not have actual knowledge of the want of twenty days' notice of sale, and did not discover it for a number of days after the said period of fifteen days, when for the first time the plaintiff claimed to have the money returned to him.
Judgment for the defendants.
G. W Phillips, for the plaintiff. The United States Bankrupt Act, St. 1867, c. 176, § 10, gives the Supreme Court authority to make general orders "for regulating the duties of the various officers of the District Courts in Bankruptcy," and "generally for carrying the provisions of this act into effect." General Order 19 provides that the assignee shall prepare a complete inventory of all the property of the bankrupt that comes into his possession, and that "all sales of the same shall be by public auction, unless otherwise ordered by the court." General Order 21 provides that notice of the time and place of sale of real estate shall be "at least twenty days before such sale;" upon application to the court, for good cause shown, the assignee may be authorized to sell at private sale; and the court may, by order in special cases, dispense with newspaper and hand-bill advertisements. Here the assignees undertook to sell, at public auction, under Order 21; and gave notice by newspaper advertisement; but not for the required twenty days. The sale was therefore invalid. Holbrook v. Coney, 25 Ill. 543, 549. Cleveland v. Boerum, 27 Barb. 252, 254. Gray v. Heslep, 33 Misso. 238, 243. Osborn v. Baxter, 4 Cush. 406, 407. Wellman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chilton v. Metcalf
...secs. 4, 13 and 14; Rules of Supreme Court of United States, 1874, V. X.; Hills v. Alden, 2 Hask. 299; In re Mott, 6 F. 685; Crowley v. Hyde, 116 Mass. 589; Tuite Stevens, 98 Mass. 305; In re Burke, 15 N. B. R. 40. (2) The filing of the petition in bankruptcy operated as an attachment of th......
-
Altobelli v. Montesi
...which the plaintiff seeks to have declared void. See Wellman v. Lawrence, 15 Mass. 326;Litchfield v. Cudworth, 15 Pick. 23, 31;Crowley v. Hyde, 116 Mass. 589, 591;Justice v. Soderlund, 225 Mass. 320, 323, 114 N.E. 623. The plaintiff's title is in no wise affected by the mortgage. His title ......
-
Thomas v. Beals
... ... c. 157, § 50, as to how the assignee ... shall sell, are merely directory. Tuite v. Stevens, ... 98 Mass. 305, 307; Crowley v. Hyde, 116 Mass. 589, ... [154 Mass. 54] ... The ... only ground on which the sale can be attacked is that ... although in ... ...
-
Curdy v. Stafford
...are held directory only, and to affect the accountability of the assignee, but not the title of those who purchase from him. Crowley v. Hyde, 116 Mass. 589. The failure to observe these rules would, at most, render the sale irregular, and subject to be set aside by direct attack. It was not......