delivered the opinion of the Court:

The constable’s authority to sell these goods was derived under a fieri facias; the execution of which the law requires to be done in such a manner, as that by the sale, the property is most likely to command the highest price in ready money, it is evident, that for this purpose, the bidders ought to have an opportunity of inspecting the goods, and forming an estimate of their value $ without which it is not to be expected that a fair equivalent will be bid. The presence of the goods too, in the possession of the officer, to which possession the levy gives him a right, assures the bidders that a delivery will be made to the highest forthwith; and that so far the object of the purchase will be attained without litigation. Here, however, the goods were sold without being exhibited to the bidders, and while they were actually locked up in an apartment of the house. This was such an abuse of authority in the constable as was calculated cither to sacri- *472 flCe, at under value, the property of an honest Defendant, or su*)sel>ve some purpose of collusion between a knavish one and the purchaser. One of these ends must have j)cen c{fec|:e(] jn tfljg case, where property has been sold for one tenth of its value. There is much justice and security in the rule established by the decisions heretofore made, requiring the presence of chattels when they are sold by the sheriff or constable; and those cases ought to be followed. The rule for a new trial must be discharged.