De Baun v. Brand
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On.case certified. The Bergen Circuit Court has certified into this court for its advisory opinion the question presented in its certificate, as follows: “Hackensack, N. J., October 2d, 1896. “ This action was brought upon an agreement made by the defendant with the plaintiff to pay her the sum of two thousand dollars as hereinafter stated.
Read the full summary
On.case certified. The Bergen Circuit Court has certified into this court for its advisory opinion the question presented in its certificate, as follows: “Hackensack, N. J., October 2d, 1896. “ This action was brought upon an agreement made by the defendant with the plaintiff to pay her the sum of two thousand dollars as hereinafter stated. “ The following facts were proven at the trial: The father of the plaintiff and defendant, one Amos Brand, died seized of a farm in Saddle River township, Bergen county, on March 4th, 1879. “The said Amos Brand died as aforesaid, leaving a will, which was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Van Syckel, J.
Agreements having for their object the suppressing of competition in bidding at public sales have been very generally regarded with disfavor by courts when their aid has been invoked to enforce them. ’
As early as the days of Lord Mansfield it was held to be contrary to good faith, and a fraud upon the real bidders, for the owner to employ puffers to bid for him at an auction. Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp. 395; Howard v. Castle, 6 T. R. 642.
*286The converse must be equally true that an arrangement to suppress bidding, to the detriment of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Doolin v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Gibbs v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Gardiner v. MorseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1845
- Goldman v. OppenheimIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the estate of SharpNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1901
- De Baun v. BrandSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898