Veeder v. Fonda
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to compel the purchaser, under the decree in this cause, to complete his purchase. The purchas—, er resisted the application, on the ground that he had been ! deceived by the notice of sale as to the quantity of land contained in the lot sold. for the complainants. It has been repeatedly •decided that masters’ sales do not come within the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
This was an application to compel the purchaser, under the decree in this cause, to complete his purchase. The purchas—, er resisted the application, on the ground that he had been ! deceived by the notice of sale as to the quantity of land contained in the lot sold. for the complainants. It has been repeatedly •decided that masters’ sales do not come within the statute of frauds. The objection therefore that the purchaser is not bound, to complete his purchase, upon the ground that there was no memorandum in writing of the sale, cannot be sustained. The purchaser in this case is bound to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
As property to a vast extent is sold under the decrees and orders of this court, much of which property belongs to infants, and others who are not able to protect their own rights, it has always been an important object with the court to encourage a fair competition at masters’ sales.. For this purpose it is necessary that purchasers at suck sales should understand that no deception whatever will be permitted to be practiced upon them. That in a contract between them and the court, they will not be compelled to carry that contract into effect under circumstances where it would…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Belknap v. . SealeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Lane v. Chantilly CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Hammond v. CailleaudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Van De Sande v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Gomez v. BobkerNew York Supreme Court · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.