¶1The property was twice advertised for sale under the execution in. this cause. The petitioner, who was interested in the property, attended at the time and place fixed in the first advertisement. He was then and there told by the complainant that owing to a mistake in the advertisement the sale would not take place, but would be re-advertised. The complainant then promised to notify him of the sale. Through forgetfulness he did not do so, and the sale took place in the absence and without the knowledge of the petitioner, and the property was sold at an inadequate price. The petitioner relied on the complainant’s promise. He intended to be present at the sale and buy the property. He estimates it as worth, at a low valuation, $900. It was sold for $160. The sale should be set aside, without costs. The costs of resale will be borne by the property. The money paid by the purchaser to the master, is of course to be repaid to him.
35 N.J. Eq. 22
Pell v. Vreeland
Decided February 15, 1882
New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1882-02-15
<p>Where the complainant in a cause promised to notify the petitioner, who was interested in the property, of the time and place of sale, and forgot so to do, in consequence whereof the petitioner did not attend, and the property was sacrificed, such sale was set aside.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1900
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-02-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →