Duncan v. Eck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As a general rule mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground for setting aside a sheriff’s sale, but all of the authorities hold uniformly that gross inadequacy of consideration, coupled with very slight additional circumstances, is sufficient to set aside such sale, and that where the consideration is so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court, or is very great, it is alone sufficient. Fowler v. Krutz et al., 54 Kan. 622 , 38 P. 808 ; Means et al. v. Rosevear, 42 Kan. 377 , 22 P. 319 ; Magann et al. v. Segal et al., 92 Fed. 252 , 34 C. C. A. 323 ; Wolfert v. Bank, 5 Kan. App. 222 , 47 P. 175 . These cases also give apt illustrations of circumstances under which courts will set aside a sheriff’s sale. “It is the duty of the court in confirming or setting aside a sheriff’s sale to protect all parties concerned, the owners and the creditors of the owners as well as the purchaser, “ 'Whether the sale should be confirmed is a matter within the sound discretion of the court; but it is a discretion that muse be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily; and if abused is subject to review on appeal. The sale must appear to be in all essential respects fair and proper, or it will not be confirmed, and the simple fact that confirmation would sacrifice the interests of those entitled to the protection of the court is sufficient ground for refusal to confirm. The court will not, however, be astute to find objections, and if there is no evidence of unfai”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Harrower

2. ““Taking into consideration that the property, which the uncontradicted evidence shows is worth $3,000, was sold for $100, that this left a deficiency judgment against the defendant of $854.36, that he was misled by the judgment not being satisfied before the sale with the money sent to the sheriff by him, that he had been reasonably diligent in making arrangements to satisfy said judgment, and had sent before the sale the amount required to satisfy said judgment according to the telegram sent to the defendant in Texas by the sheriff, and that he still tendered into court the amount sufficient to satisfy said judgment and all cost, together with the circumstances above set forth, it would be, under such circumstances, to ask the court to confirm said sale in effect to ask the court to sanction an unconscionable bargain. “The circumstances amply justified the court in rendering the judgment, setting aside the sheriff’s sale and refusing to confirm the same. Therefore the judgment of the court should be affirmed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Harrower