Spring v. Sandford
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the chancellor upon the several appeals of J. Cook and F. Sebert, two of the purchasers at the master’s sale under the decree in this cause, from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit refusing to discharge the appellants from their purchases.
Read the full summary
This case came before the chancellor upon the several appeals of J. Cook and F. Sebert, two of the purchasers at the master’s sale under the decree in this cause, from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit refusing to discharge the appellants from their purchases. Several objections were made to the validity of the title to be acquired under the master’s sale, all of which were overruled by the vice chancellor; and the appellants were ordered to complete their purchases.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Some of the objections to the title in this case, which involve no legal principle but depend for their support upon mere questions of fact, would have been proper subjects of a reference to a master if the purchasers had sworn even to their belief of the existence of a state of facts which would necessarily render the title to be acquired under the master’s deed invalid. But the court, in giving a title to the purchaser, does not undertake to give a title which can by no possible state of facts be defeated. It only assumes to give such a title as a purchaser at a private sale…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Mead v. . MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Murray v. . HarwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Moser v. . CochraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Garden City Sand Co. v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Schermerhorn v. NibloThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.