Lentz v. Craig
Opinion of the Court
At the sale of the premises in this case, they were struck off to Storkill for $6,850.
Under the terms of sale the auctioneer may put up the property for sale again if the purchaser do not comply with the terms of sale — but this must be on such notice that no one will be misled by it. Miller was justified in inferring from the consent of the auctioneer, that the sale was made at $6,850, and that it would be completed at that price — and he left the Exchange with this belief. Some notice after this should have been given by advertisement, or by notice to the parties interested, or who appeared in the cause, before there could be a re-sale, or the auctioneer should have announced as soon as the property was struck down to Storkill, or at all events, before he began to sell another lot, that the re-sale would take place immediately if the purchaser did not comply with the terms of sale. The biddings were not kept open after the sale of a new lot was commenced; then all the audience might consider the biddings in this case closed. Although there was a large company remaining at the second sale, yet it is evident that it was not a company of bidders, — for at the first sale the biddings were spirited — this is not said of the second. At the first Lynch bid $6,825; at the second, he bought the property for $6,300.
The purchaser has acted fairly. He should be indemnified
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.