Groff v. Jones

6 Wend. 522
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 6 Wend. 522 (Groff v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Groff v. Jones, 6 Wend. 522 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The legislature have enacted that no more of any real estate shall be exposed for sale than shall appear necessary to satisfy an execution issued upon a judgmant. 2 R. S. 369, § 38. This provision can be considered only as directory to the sheriff, and the sale to a bona fide purchaser must be holden to be valid, although the requirements of the statute are not complied with. The only effect, when the purchase is bona fide, is to subject the sheriff to the penalty prescribed; but where the pur[524]*524chase is not bona fide, the sale will be set aside. Here real esfa¿e Worth ten thousand dollars was sold to satisfy a debt of one hundred dollars, and the property was so situated that a portion of it could have been conveniently sold separately, and would probably have brought a sum at public vendue more than sufficient to satisfy the older judgment; still the sheriff proceeded and sold the whole en masse, and it was bought in by junior judgment creditors, to whom the surplus of the purchase money was paid by the officer, by the direction of the defendant in the executions. We do not hesitate to pronounce this sale fraudulent, and to grant relief to the creditors who have been injured. It is not necessary to send them to a court of equity; we therefore order that the sale be set aside, upon the plaintiffs in the second judgment paying to the plaintiff in the first judgment the amount due to him, they receiving an assignment of such judgment; and if there be a refusal to execute such assignment, then that the sale be set aside absolutely.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shelton v. Franklin
123 S.W. 1084 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Schroeder v. Young
161 U.S. 334 (Supreme Court, 1896)
Hopton v. Swan
50 Miss. 545 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1874)
Hackley v. Draper
4 Thomp. & Cook 614 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Frederick v. Wheelock
3 Thomp. & Cook 210 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Aldrich v. Wilcox
10 R.I. 405 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1873)
Williams v. Allison
33 Iowa 278 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)
Vanduyne v. Vanduyne
16 N.J. Eq. 93 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1863)
Livingston v. Miller
16 Abb. Pr. 371 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Cunningham v. Cassidy
7 Abb. Pr. 183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1858)
Husted v. Dakin
17 Abb. Pr. 137 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Ames v. Lockwood
13 How. Pr. 555 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)
Jones v. Portsmouth & Concord Railroad
32 N.H. 544 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1856)
Bridgman v. Wilcut
4 Greene 563 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1854)
Tillman v. Jackson
1 Minn. 183 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1854)
Lee v. Davis
16 Ala. 516 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1849)
President of Natchez v. Minor
18 Miss. 246 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1848)
Day v. Graham
6 Ill. 435 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1844)
Rector v. Hartt
8 Mo. 448 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1844)
Howard & Ryckman v. McKnight
25 Wend. 688 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Wend. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groff-v-jones-nysupct-1831.