Re Carew's Estate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1858 |
| Date | 03 December 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 869
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 27 L. J. Ch. 218; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1290; 7 W. R. 81.
28BEAV. 187. TN BE CAREW's ESTATE 869 [187] In re carew's estate. Nov. 20, Dee. 3, 1858. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 218; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1290; 7 W. K. 81.] On a sale under the Court, two persons agreed not to bid against each other, but that one should bid up to £1500 and divide the lot between them. They bought it for £650. Held, that this agreement furnished no ground for opening the biddings, or annulling the sale. Some land was sold by auction under the Court in lots, and Lot 2 adjoined the lands of Mr. Peek and Mr. Watney. On the day of the sale, Mr. Peek and Mr. Watney entered into an agreement not to bid against each other, but that Peek should buy the lot, if it could be got for £1500, and then divide it between them in certain proportions. Accordingly, Mr. Peek bid at the auction, and became the purchaser for £650. The reserved bidding had, unknown to them, been fixed at £600. The sale was confirmed by the Court, the title was accepted and the conveyance approved of, but before it was executed, Mr. Peek and Mr. Watney disagreed as to the division of the property, and notice of the agreement was given to the vendors, who took out a summons to set aside the sale, which was adjourned into Court. Mr. Southgate, for the vendors. This purchase was inequitable and void, it is the exact ease stated by Lord St. Leonards (Sug. Vendors, 93 (13th ed.)) in which this Court will rescind a sale. He says :-" Fraud will, of course, be a sufficient ground for opening the biddings. Therefore, if the parties aijree. not to bid against each other," ..." the Court would open the biddings, although the report had been absolutely confirmed." In Scott v. Nesbit (3 Bro. C. C. 475), the Lord Chancellor said, that " if it could be clearly and unequivocally established that there was any private agree-[188]-ment between the bidders not to bid against each other that is a practice the Court ought to prevent." Here it is clear that the parties themselves valued this lot at £1500, and that they were prepared to give that sum for it, but by this private arrangement they have obtained it for £650. There has been no fair competition between the persons to whom this land was an object, and who were most disposed to bid for it against each other ; it has been prevented by a private arrangement between the Respondent, and the sale ought therefore to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...are not contrary to law. See Galton v Emuss (1 Coll. 243; 63 E.R. 402); Heffer v Martyn (36 L.J., Ch. 372); Re Carew's Estate (26 Beavan 187, 53 E.R. 869); Re Alexandra Hall Co. (16 L.T. 7); Rawlings v General Trading Co. (1921, I.K.B. 635). An agreement not to bid is not on the same footin......
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...are not contrary to law. See Galton v Emuss (1 Coll. 243; 63 E.R. 402); Heffer v Martyn (36 L.J., Ch. 372); Re Carew's Estate (26 Beavan 187, 53 E.R. 869); Re Alexandra Hall Co. (16 L.T. 7); Rawlings v General Trading Co. (1921, I.K.B. 635). An agreement not to bid is not on the same footin......
-
SA Wire Co (Pty) Ltd v Durban Wire & Plastics (Pty) Ltd
...v General Trading Co., supra; G Galton v Emuss, 22 Law Journal Reports Equity 388; Chattock v Muller, (1878) 88 Ch. D 177; Care's Estate, 53 E.R. 869. The last-mentioned case related to two persons agreeing not to bid against each other at an auction sale but that one of them should bid up ......
-
SA Wire Co (Pty) Ltd v Durban Wire & Plastics (Pty) Ltd
...v General Trading Co., supra; G Galton v Emuss, 22 Law Journal Reports Equity 388; Chattock v Muller, (1878) 88 Ch. D 177; Care's Estate, 53 E.R. 869. The last-mentioned case related to two persons agreeing not to bid against each other at an auction sale but that one of them should bid up ......