Montague v. International Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1905
• Parties: MONTAGUE ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO. ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

38 So. 1025

142 Ala. 544

MONTAGUE ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 9, 1905

Appeal from Chancery Court, De Kalb County; W. H. Simpson, Chancellor.

Foreclosure suit by the International Trust Company against the Alabama Kaolin Company and others. From an order setting aside the sale and ordering a resale, D. P. Montague and others, purchasers, appeal. Affirmed.

The property was sold by the register, appellants becoming the purchasers. After this sale the Alabama Kaolin Company and others filed objections to the confirmation of the sale, and at the same time also filed an application that the said sale be set aside and the property ordered resold. The petitioners in said application, setting out the fact that the property was sold at an enormously inadequate price, and stating to the court that they would give greatly more than was paid at the sale, offered to make a substantial deposit with the court to show their good faith. Upon the hearing of the exceptions to the confirmation of the sale and the application for a resale of the property, the court ordered that the sale theretofore made by the register be set aside and that a new sale be made, at the same time requiring the petitioners to make a deposit of $4,000 with the register.

John F. Martin, for appellants.

TYSON, J.

Aside from every other consideration, we are of the opinion that the chancellor, in the exercise of his sound discretion, was authorized to set aside the sale made by the register upon the ground of inadequacy of price. It is true the evidence before him was in conflict as to whether the property brought its real value, and, perhaps, if a larger price was not offered and secured. we might be forced to the conclusion that the weight of the evidence on this point was with the appellants. But with the fact established that a much larger price will be paid for the property on a resale, and that price guarantied, in part, by a deposit of money with the register, in connection with other evidence tending to show inadequacy of the bids of appellants, we are unwilling to affirm that the chancellor erred in refusing to confirm the sale. 17 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) pp. 992, 1004.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, C.J., and HARALSON and DENSON, JJ., concur.