Volume 138 — Virginia Reports

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error. This is a proceeding under the statute, instituted in the court below by the defendants in error, Peebles & Purdy Company (hereinafter called applicant), seeking relief from assessments of certain county levies for county free school purposes, laid by the board of supervisors of the plaintiff in error, the county of Brunswick, for the years 1921 and 1922, upon certain real estate of the applicant located; and certain…

<p>1. Judicial Sales — Master’s Report — Fixing Fee Simple Value of Land.— It has been said that a master’s report confirmed without exception, showing the value of the land subject to sale, “fixes the feesimple value of the land as between the parties to the suit.” While this statement may be subject to some qualification and dependent upon other facts shown in the particular case, certain it is that such an unbiased estimate of value, made before the precise controversy arises under an upset bid, is most potent to show that a subsequent auction sale at a greater price is not grossly inadequate.</p> <p>2. Judicial Sales — Confirmation—Upset Bid — Fair or Inadequate Price-Burden of Proof. — If an auction sale has been fairly conducted, after proper advertisement, and the property brings a fair price, the sale should generally be confirmed to the highest bidder, notwithstanding a belated upset bid of ten per cent advance thereon, thereafter submitted. If, however, the original bid is grossly inadequate, and this is shown, the sale should not be confirmed. Of course, the burden of showing such gross inadequacy is upon those who allege it.</p> <p>• 3. Judicial Sales — Confirmation—Bidders to be Encouraged. — Great care should be observed that the practice of the court in acting upon a report of sale should not be such as to deter or discourage bidders, but such as to induce possible purchasers to attend such sales, to encourage fair, open and competitive bidding in order that the highest possible price be obtained, and to inspire confidence in the stability of judicial sales.</p> <p>•4. Judicial Sales — Confirmation Notwithstanding Upset Bid — Case at Bar.— In the instant case, an appeal from a decree refusing to confirm a judicial sale, to support the decree there was an upset bid of ten per cent, and the opinions of three of the sale commissioners that the price was inadequate, and of one affiant that it was grossly inadequate. On the other hand, there was the fact that at a fair auction no one offered more, and the affidavits of nine persons that the price was fair and adequate. The master’s report, confirmed without exception before the decree of sale, found that the fee simple value of the land was less than the appellant’s bid.</p> <p>Held: That the price at which the property was cried off to the appellant was not shown to be grossly inadequate, and that the sale should be confirmed.</p>

<p>Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Southampton county.</p>

<p>Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Halifax county.</p>