Osgood v. Hamilton

Cal. District Court

Osgood v. Hamilton

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 249

DecidedOctober 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 249 (Osgood v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Osgood v. Hamilton, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 249 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Norton, J.

In this case certain real estate, in the city of Ban Francisco, was sold under an order of the court, to effect a partition. Some of the parties in interest are infants. The property sold for §15,-000, and since then; responsible persons have offered to bid §17,000, in case a re-sale is' ordered, for which a motion is now made.

In England it is the custom to open the bids, in case an advance of ten per cent, is offered. In this country, the courts have refused to adopt this custom, and it seems for good reasons. (Duncan vs. Dodd. 2 Paige, 99; Collier vs. Whipple, 13 Wend. 232.) In ease of fraud or surprise, or where the property of infant® had been manifestly sacrificed by the neglect of their guardians, relief may be granted, but this is not a case of that kind.

Motion denied, and report of sale confirmed.

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

Norton, J.

In this case certain real estate, in the city of Ban Francisco, was sold under an order of the court, to effect a partition. Some of the parties in interest are infants. The property sold for §15,-000, and since then; responsible persons have offered to bid §17,000, in case a re-sale is' ordered, for which a motion is now made.

In England it is the custom to open the bids, in case an advance of ten per cent, is offered. In this country, the courts have refused to adopt this custom, and it seems for good reasons. (Duncan vs. Dodd. 2 Paige, 99; Collier vs. Whipple, 13 Wend. 232.) In ease of fraud or surprise, or where the property of infant® had been manifestly sacrificed by the neglect of their guardians, relief may be granted, but this is not a case of that kind.

Motion denied, and report of sale confirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osgood-v-hamilton-caldistct-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack