Smith v. Wright — 1 Del. Cas. 134

Majority

p. 134

ALEXANDER SMITH and JOHN BACON, Administrators etc., v. TUBMAN WRIGHT.

Supreme Court.

March, 1799.

Wilson’s Red Book, 157.

Bidgély, for defendant,

moved to set aside sale of goods, etc. First, because undersheriffs were appraisers. Second, because all the goods were set up at once. Third, because the goods were not in view at the time of sale.

Miller

for the purchaser. Phillip Marvel, the undersheriff, swore, “I was ordered to set them all up at once, and I did. Buffington was to pay for them that night etc.”

(Much irritated.) Did you make these terms?

Witness. The goods were not to be found. I did not know where they were.

Were not the goods the sheriff’s? Was it not his duty to exhibit the goods for public sale?

The sale was set aside without argument. Wilson, being plaintiff’s attorney, required that it might be without costs, which the court granted, saying the plaintiff was not to be blamed.