Thompson v. Dimond

New York Court of Chancery

Thompson v. Dimond

3 Edw. Ch. 298, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 373, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 26

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedMarch 26, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 Edw. Ch. 298 (Thompson v. Dimond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Dimond, 3 Edw. Ch. 298, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 373, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 26 (N.Y. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case (of foreclosure) a motion was made for a resale. There were peculiar circumstances, but the purchaser had [299]*299declined to take the title, and had requested the master to transfer his bid to the complainant, who agreed to take his place. The master, as a matter of course, accepted the latter as the purchaser ; and executed a conveyance to him. One of the points raised by the defendants was, that this course was not correct; and The Vice-Chancellor considered the proper course to be, where the last bidder refused to take, and is not compelled to perfect his purchase, for the master to sell the property over again, and not allow the complainant to take the property at the former bid.

Mr. Peter De Witt, for the complainant.

Mr. Warner and Mr. Burrill, for the defendants.

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

In this case (of foreclosure) a motion was made for a resale. There were peculiar circumstances, but the purchaser had [299]*299declined to take the title, and had requested the master to transfer his bid to the complainant, who agreed to take his place. The master, as a matter of course, accepted the latter as the purchaser ; and executed a conveyance to him. One of the points raised by the defendants was, that this course was not correct; and The Vice-Chancellor considered the proper course to be, where the last bidder refused to take, and is not compelled to perfect his purchase, for the master to sell the property over again, and not allow the complainant to take the property at the former bid.

Mr. Peter De Witt, for the complainant.

Mr. Warner and Mr. Burrill, for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Edw. Ch. 298, 1839 N.Y. LEXIS 373, 1839 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-dimond-nychanct-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack