Chandler v. Cook

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Chandler v. Cook, 9 D.C. 176 (D.C. 1875)
Glut, MacArthur

Chandler v. Cook

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Glut

announced the decision of the court to* the effect following:

The only question raised by the bill in this case is as to the regularity of the notice of sale. Ho fault is found with the original advertisement, but the notice postponing the sale to the 19th of December, 1873, stated the day of the week to be Thursday instead of Friday. The day of the month was correct, and that was the day of the sale. There is no doubt *179but the wrong day of the week was inserted by mistake, and without any intention of misleading, and it was discovered and corrected the day before the sale, which actually transpired at the place and on the day of the month advertised. The correction of the notice gave a time certain, so that the public could not be misled.

We are aware of the rule which requires a trustee for sale to act in good faith and with diligent attention in conducting the sale of the property. But the postponement in this case was proper and necessary to bring the property to sale under the most favorable circumstances for realizing its full value. And, in point of fact, there is nothing in the case to show that the sale was not conducted so as to secure this result. We think the decree of the special term should be affirmed and the bill dismissed with costs.

Dissenting Opinion

MacArthur, J.,

dissented, and expressed his opinion to be that there was no proof as to the sale having been post* poned by the trustee or by his direction. The notice is in the name of the auctioneers alone, and not by the trustee. Whether the sale shall take place or be advertised again is a matter confided to the discretion of the trustee, and he cannot delegate that power to auctioneers or agents under the special trust and confidence with which he alone is invested. The fact may be that the postponement was authorized and the new advertisement directed by the trustee; but there is nothing in the pleadings or proofs to explain the advertisement of the auctioneers. For this reason, I think there was no valid execution of the power to sell, and that the sale was null and void.

Reference

Full Case Name
WILLIAM E. CHANDLER v. WILLIAM A. COOK, TRUSTEE
Status
Published