The Weekly Reporter Volume 54 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...those special costs occasioned by his bidding; at the auction. It is suggested that he is precluded from that by Bain v. Fothergill, but it seems to me that that case, although it lays down a rule of almost universal application, has nothing to do with sales by the court. The practice of the court seems to be perfectly well settled, though it is not laid down in any text-books. The matter was discussed in Powell v. Powell, before Bacon, V.C. There the purchaser was held to be entitled to be discharged, and the Vice-Chancellor said in his judgment, at p. 425: "This brings it to the ordinary case of a purchaser also who, finding that he is entitled by law, on acount of the invalidity of proceedings in chambers, to be discharged from his contract, is entitled on coming here to be reinstated in exactly the same position that he stood in whn he attended the sale, and to be indemnified against all the expenses he has been put to." That is a rule laid down with reference only to sales by the court and the discharge of purchasers under such sales. Without citing authorities it is always recognized by the court that it is tbe boimden duty of the court to uphold a very high standard of conduct mere strictly in the case of a sale by the court than in cases between strangers. The minute of the order made in Powell v. Powell is given in the report of that case, and it is set out in the last edition of Seton, vol. 1, p. 356, whore the principle is worked out so as to be applicable to a sale by private contract under the direction of the court. Nothiug else is referred to there except Powell v. Powell, but during the argument we came upon another case, Perkins v. Ede, 16 Beav. 268, where Romilly, M.R., contented himself by saying " Take the usual order &quo...