Nix v. Draughan
| Decision Date | 21 May 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 669 |
| Parties | NIX v. DRAUGHAN <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Miller county; CHARLES E. MITCHELL, Judge.
Suit by Draughan & Allen Bros. and others against John B. Nix. From a refusal to order a resale of defendant's land under a decree he appeals. Affirmed.
John Hallum and E. F. Friedell, for appellant. Scott & Jones, for appellees.
The sale was made in accordance with the decree, and there was no showing that it was conducted fraudulently or unfairly. The fact that the lands sold for an inadequate price was not sufficient to entitle the defendant to a resale, and the court did not err in refusing to order one. Fry v. Street, 44 Ark. 502; Blackburn v. Railway Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 689; 2 Daniel, Ch. Pr. (4th Ed.) 1285.
The defendant cannot complain that the three-acre tract was sold in a body. The decree condemned it as one tract, and, if he wished it to be sold in subdivisions, he should have asked the court to so order or the master to so offer it. He could not remain silent with regard to the matter until the sale was made, and afterwards be permitted to insist upon it, by way of objection to confirming the sale.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Ryan
...56 Ark. 242. Confirmation of sale will not be refused for grossly inadequate price in the absence of fraud and unfairness. 44 Ark. 502; 56 Ark. 240; 23 Ark. 53 Ark. 113. Henry Berger and Morris M. Cohn, for appellants in reply. No presumptions which contradict the record are indulged. 55 Ar......
- George v. Woods