An officer at a sale on execution conducted by himself cannot act as agent, with full discretionary powers of an absent person in the purchase of property, since the law casts on him the duty fidelity to the execution debtor, and such purchase by the officer is void, and confers no title on his principal ; Caswell v. Jones, 65 Vt. 457, 26 Atl. 529, 20 L. R. A. 503, 36 Am. St. Rep. 879.
Any statements made with a purpose to deter bidding may avoid the sale; Phelps v. Benson, 161 Pa. 418, 29 Atl. 86; Herndon v. Gibson, 38 S. C. 357, 17 S. E. 145, 20 L. R. A. 545, 37 Am. St. Rep. 765 ; Barnes v. Mays, 88 Ga. 696, 16 S. E. 67.
It is generally said to be a rule that mere inadequacy of price is not of itself suffi cient ground for setting aside a judicial sale ; Bethlehem Iron Co. v. Ry. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 356, 23 Atl. 1077; Passmore v. Moore (Ky.) 22 S. W. 325 ; Dazet v. Landry, 21 Nev. 291, 30 Pac. 1064 ; Pewabic Min. Co. v. Mason, 145 U. S. 349, 12 Sup. Ct. 887, 36 L. Ed. 732 ; and that there must be shown in addition to inadequacy some fraud, accident, mistake, or other special circumstance to warrant re scission of the contract ; Harman v. Copen haver, 89 Va. 836, 17 S. E. 482. But the gen eral rule as stated is not sustained without qualifications, since the inadequacy may be so gross as to shock the conscience of the court, as it is frequently expressed, and to be regarded as of itself sufficient ground for set ting aside the sale ; Connell v. Wilhelm, 36 W. Va. 598, 15 S. E. 245 ; as where land val ued at $8,000, with incumbrances amounting to $2,700 was sold at $2,000; Johnson v. Av ery, 56 Minn. 12, 57 N. W. 217; or where the same land brought at a subsequent sale $1, 500 ; Johnson v. Avery, 60 Minn. 262, 62 N. W. 283, 51 Am. St. Rep. 529. Where the price is grossly inadequate, the court will be quick to seize upon any other circumstance im peaching the fairness of the transaction; Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. S. 334, 16 Sup. Ct. 512, 40 L. Ed. 721; or the least irregularity in the proceeding ; Warder-Bushnell-Glesser Co. v. Allen, 63 Mo. App. 456. See as to in adequacy, Bean v. Hoffendorfer, 84 Ky. 685, 2 S. W. 556, 3 S. W. 138.
A sale of property as a whole may be con firmed if the decree that it be so sold not objected to, and there is no offer of a better bid in case the bidding be reopened ; Central Trust Co. v. R. Co., 60 Fed. 9. The objec tion that different parcels of real estate were sold together cannot be made by one who has suffered no injury therefrom ; Parker v. Car Wheel Co., 108 Ala. 140, 18 South. 938.
Combinations to prevent competitive bid ding, and any conduct at the sale upon the part of interested parties which is fraudu lent will make the sale void, as where there was an agreement between judgment creditors without knowledge of the debtor that one should refrain from bidding, in consideration of a promise to pay his judgment, made by the other, the sale was held void for fraud ; Phelps v. Benson, 161 Pa. 418, 29 AU. 86 ; and Where a mortgagor publicly announced at the sale that she was a widow dependent upon the premises for support, that she in tended to bid, and that she requested no one to bid against her, the sale was set aside ; Herndon v. Gibson, 38 S. C. 357, 17 S. E. 145,
20 L. R. A. 545, 37 Am. St. Rep. 765. One intending to purchase commits fraud by pay ing another not to bid against him ; Goble v. O'Connor, 43 Neb. 49, 61 N. W. 131; Saxton v. Seiberling, 48 Ohio St. 554, 29 N. E. 179 ; and on of the facts after sale, pay ment of purchase money, and conveyance, an administrator's sale may be set aside ; Barnes v. Mays, 88 Ga. 696, 16 S. E. 67 ; to show such fraud evidence is admissible of the amount intended to be bid by the competitor who was hired not to bid ; id.; but where the competitor is induced by an execution creditor under a secret agreement to refrain from bidding, it is incompetent for the cred itor to show on a petition for subrogation that the property brought less than its mar ket value ; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 92. Where dur ing an administrator's sale, one of the bid ders arranged with the others for a consid eration to stop bidding, and he thereby ob tained the property for less than its market value, the sale was void ; Ingalls v. Rowell, 149 Ill. 163, 36 N. E. 1016; but where there is an agreement between two persons to pre vent bidding, and one of them purchases the land, the sale will not be set aside at the in stance of the other on the ground that he was prevented from bidding by reason of in ducement offered by the purchaser ; Harrell v. Wilson, 108 N. C. 97, 12 S. E. 889. An agreement between five lien holders, any one of whom was financially unable to bid for himself, that one should bid on the property as trustee for them all, was not invalid as a combination to discourage bidding ; Gulick v. Webb, 41 Neb. 706, 60 N. W. 13, 43 Am. St. Rep. 720.
Upon the refusal of a purchaser at a ju dicial sale to fulfil his' contract, the property may be resold and such purchaser held lia ble for any deficiency in price arising upon the second sale ; Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 518, 8 Sup. Ct. 1279, 32 L. Ed. 191. But it has been held that to be held liable he must be served with a rule, awarded after the sale was reported, to show cause why he should not complete his purchase, or in default, the property to be resold ; Stout v. Mercantile Co., 41 W. Va. 339, 23 S. E. 571, 56 Am. St. Rep. 843.
See an elaborate and valuable note on the subject of injunctions against judicial sales in 30 L. R. A. 98-143 ; and a similar note upon the protection to purchasers and who is a bona fide purchaser, in 21 L. R. A. 33.
See, generally, Rorer, Judicial Sales; Tie deman, Sales ch. 17 ; FRANCHISE; EXECU TION; MORTGAGE; SALE; TAX SALE; VOID. And see as to proceedings and conduct of sale, Newell v. Meyendorff, 9 Mont. 254, 23 Pac. 333, 8 L. R. A. 440, 18 Am. St. Rep.. 738 ; 75 Am. Dec. 704, note ; of franchise, 20 L. R. A. 737, note; of equity of redemption, 7 Can. L. J. 257 ; interest sold, 29 Am. St. Rep. 653, note.