Graffam v. Burgess
Citations
- 117 U.S. 180
- 6 S. Ct. 686
- 29 L. Ed. 839
- 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1823
Syllabus
<p>•A judicial sale of real estate will not be set aside for inadequacy of price, unless the inadequacy be so great as to shock the conscience, or unless there be additional circumstances against its fairness.</p> <p>Great inadequacy of price at a judicial sale of i-eal estate requires only slight circumstances of unfairness in the conduct of the party benefited by the sale, to raise a presumption of fraud.</p> <p>If the inadequacy of price paid for the purchase of real estate at a sale on an execution he so gross as to shock the conscience, or if in addition to gross inadequacy the purchaser has been guilty of- unfairness or has taken any undue advantage, or if the owner .of the property or the party interested in it has been for any other reason misled or surprised, then the sale 'will be regarded as fraudulent and void, and the party injured will be permitted to redeem the property sold.</p> <p>Looking at the whole facts in this ease the icourt finds traces of design on the part of plaintifE in error to mislead defendant in error, to lull her into security, and thus prevent her from redeeming her property sold on execution within the period allowed by the Statute of the State; and the court sustains the action of ,the court below in making a deeree allowing redemption of the same after the expiration of that period.</p> <p>After hearing of the proofs, a bill in equity may he amended so as to put in issue matters in dispute and in proof, but nob sufficiently put in issue by the original bill.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- tracing the “justice” doctrine back to its roots in 18th-century English common law and stating, “the rule has become almost universal, that a sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of price, unless the inadequacy be so great as to shock the conscience”
- recognizing irregularities in the sale
- sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of price unless coupled with other circumstances indicating its unfairness
- sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of price unless coupled with other circumstances indicating its unfairness
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bradley, Miller, Woods, Matthews, Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
123 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court· 1934-01-08· cited 1,617×
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court· 1959-04-20· cited 563×
- Schroeder v. YoungSupreme Court· 1896-03-02· cited 127×
- Gelfert v. National City Bank of NYSupreme Court· 1941-04-28· cited 100×
- Morrison v. BurnetteEighth Circuit· 1907-07-10· cited 75×
- Golden v. TomiyasuNevada Supreme Court· 1963-12-23· cited 72×
- Ballentyne v. SmithSupreme Court· 1907-04-08· cited 65×
- Ivy v. HoodSupreme Court of Alabama· 1918-06-20· cited 65×
- Citibank, N. A. v. Data Lease Financial CorporationFifth Circuit· 1981-05-18· cited 61×
- Levy v. Broadway-Carmen Building Corp.Illinois Supreme Court· 1937-04-16· cited 57×
- In Re Stanley Engineering CorporationThird Circuit· 1947-11-06· cited 47×
- In re Gil-bern Industries, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1975-12-04· cited 43×
- Frascatore v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Frascatore)E.D. Pennsylvania· 1989-04-13· cited 40×
- In Re KrohnArizona Supreme Court· 2002-08-27· cited 35×
- Power v. LarabeeNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1894-01-08· cited 35×
- NAB Bank v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.Appellate Court of Illinois· 2013-01-22· cited 34×
- Sturgiss v. CorbinFourth Circuit· 1905-11-02· cited 34×
- Weir v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1964-12-09· cited 34×
- Webster v. Barnes Banking Co.Tenth Circuit· 1940-07-24· cited 31×
- George v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1905-12-02· cited 29×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Neale v. NealesSupreme Court· 1870-02-21· cited 97×
- Hardin v. BoydSupreme Court· 1885-03-16· cited 90×
- Tripp v. CookNew York Supreme Court· 1841-07-01· cited 55×
- Collier v. WhippleCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 1834-12-15· cited 51×
- Glenn v. ClappCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1839-12-15· cited 37×
- Byers v. SurgetSupreme Court· 1857-03-18· cited 29×
- Duncan v. DoddNew York Court of Chancery· 1830-03-17· cited 29×
- Tiernan v. WilsonNew York Court of Chancery· 1822-10-24· cited 24×
- Howell v. BakerNew York Court of Chancery· 1819-09-04· cited 20×
- Drinan v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1874-06-27· cited 20×
- Williamson v. DaleNew York Court of Chancery· 1818-01-09· cited 19×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.