616 - FEDERAL LAND BANIi- OF - ST: LOUIS V. FLOYD. [187-
FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. LOUIS V. FLOYD. 4-3130 • Opinion delivered June 19, 1933 1. JUDICIAL SALES—TITLE OF PURCHASER.—A purchaser at a commissioner's sale takes a vested, interest by his purchase; and . confirmation follows as a matter of right unless fraud entered into the transaction or the price bid was so grossly inadequate aS to shock one's sense of justice. 2. MORTGAGES—CONFIRMATION OF FORECiOSURE SALE.—Acts 1933, No. 21, § 4, authorizing chancery courts, under certain circumstances, to refuse to confirm commissioners' sales and to direct a resale, regardless of fraud or inequitable conduct, could not be construed to be retroactive, so as to impair the . vested rights of a purchaser. 3. MORTGAGES—CONFIRMATION OF FORECLOSURE SALE.—The chancery Court's power to refuse to . confirm a report of a foreclosure sale and to'order a resale must be measured by the law in force at the date of the sale. 4. JUDICIAL SALES INADEQUACY OF " CONSIDERATION.—Mere . inadequacy of . consideration, however gross, unaccompanied by fraud, unfairness or other inequitable conduct, is insufficient to justify setting aside and refusing confirmation of a judicial sale. Appeal.from Marion Chancery Court ; Sam W illiams , Chancellor ; reversed. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was instituted in tbe Marion, Chancery Court by appellant against the appellee to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate in Marion County given to secure an indebtedness of $5,000. Personal service was had upon the appellee, and on October 24, 1932, a default decree was rendered in favor of appellant for the sum of $6,239.56, and the property conveyed in the mortgage was condemned and ordered sold by a commissioner. On December 22, 1932, the commissioner offered tbe property described in the mortgage for sale at public vendue lind appellant became 'the purchaser thereof for the sum
ARK.] FEDERAL LAN D. BAN K OF -ST. LOUIS v. FLOYD. 617 of $5,000. After crediting -appellant's .bid on the -judgment it left a-deficiency in the. sum of $1,239.50.- Subsequent to the sale appellee filed exceptions to the•com-- missioner's report in which he alleged that the property. was sold by the commissioner for a grossly inadequate price and prayed that the court direct a resale -of the property. . Thereafter the chancerylcourt heard .testimony on the value of the lands to the following effect: • One Lee Reynolds testified that .he was appraiser for the Federal Farm . Loan . Board and that the property was worth from $3;800 to $4,000. Walter C. *MaXey, deputy bank commissioner, testified that in his opinion. the lands were worth $5,250.. Levi Johnson testified that he was secretary-treasurer of the Marion County National Farm Loan Association, and that, in his opinion, the market value of the property at the time of the sale was from $4,600 to $5,000. 0. R. Shaddox testified that the lands were worth around $4,000. T. J. Horner testi-• fied that tbe lands, in his opinion, were not worth in excess of $4,000 or $5,000. Appellee testified that the lands were worth $10;000 and was corroborated in his testimony by R. L. Berry who testified that the lands, in his opinion, were worth• $10,000. .•-• After hearing the above testimony; the court sifs-tained appellee's exceptions to the report and directed a resale of the. property. ,L R. Cracker, J. Sam Rowland and J. H. Ready, for appellant. JOIfICSOIC,. C. J., (after . stating the facts).- It is' first sought to uphold the ()Her of the chancellor directing a resale of the property because of act 21 of 1933. This act in effect authorizes the respective Chancery . courts'of the State to refuse to confirin commissioner's sales, irrespective of frand or inequitable conduct in effecting the sale. Section 4 of act 21 of 1933, cited and relied upon by appellee, reads as follows : -“Section 4. Before confirming a sale, the court shall ascertain whether or not, on account of -economic conditions, or the circurnstances attending the sale, a fair price with reference to the in-
618 FEDEKAL -LAND BA-NK * OF -ST. 1013-1S-V. FLOYD:- [187 trinsic value of the proi p erty wa g obtained. If it is made to apPear: tO the court that a -better pride could be obtained at a resale, or : if anY : one agrees to-bid a substantially higher amount at a resale,. the 'court shall order a resale On Such terms as the court may require." This act was approved February 9,- 1933. • On December 22, 1932, the date on which this sale was effected, : act 21 of•1933,Jiad not been passed, therefore, if it has applidation to • this sale, it must be -construed as retroactive in scope. This court held in Smith v. Spillman, 135 Ark. 279, 205-18.W. 107 purchaser at a : drainage tax sale, even 'before cOnfirmation, acquires a Vested right to the land purchased whiCh' cannot be affected by a statute passed before Confirmation extending the .power of.. redemption?.'i Therefore; it seenis that this court is committed' to .the doctrine that- a purchaser • at a commissioner's Sale takes a vested interest by reason:of the purchase, :and donfirthation follows , as a matter of right, unless it be-found. that fraud 'entered into the - transaction or else the priCe'bid and . offered was so grossly inadequate:as to . shock one's sense of ju-stice: Since . appellant took. a VeSted interest in the property by reason of its bid and purchase on December 22, 1932, the Legislature was and is withott authority to pass a Statute impairing its vested right. Therefore, •the provisions of act 21 of 1933 cannot be given a retroactive. effect sO, as to impair, appellantZs. vested interest in the property. Since the *provisions. of act . 21 . of'.1933 have no application 'to . the facth in. this case, the chancery court's power to rauSe' to donfirin the repOrt of sale and to order a-resale, as was‘ here-done; must be measured: by the.rules of law in- force and .effect . •in this State on December 22, 1932. Up to the -passage arid approval of act 21 of 1933 the rule in reference to . the confirmation or 'rejection of reports of sale for 'inadequacy of price was as follows : "Mere inadequacy- of conSideration, however gross, un-adconipanied by fraud, unfairness or other inequitable
conduct in•connection with a judicial sale, is, of itself, insufficient to justify the court in • setting aside. the sale and refusing confirmation thereof." Southern. Grocery Co. v. Merchants' .& Planters' Title & Iwoestment Co. 186 Ark. 615, 54 S. W. (2d) 980. A great preponderanCe of the testimony inttoduced oh the eiceptions to the tepoit of sale establishes the fact that $5,000 was the , fair mariet Value of the Mori-gagenands on December 22, 1932; , and the chancellor's findings Otherwise is against the prePonderance 'Of the testitnony. :The other of the Mation'COunty Chancery doutt refusing to confitin the Sale of -the Mortgaged land to 'appellant is reYersed, and the cause 'temanded with direc-. tiOns to approye and cOnfirm the sale.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.