ARK.11 HAWKINS v. WOOD. 845 • HAWKINS. v. WOOD.. Opinion:delivered . June 24,.1929. 1. JUDICIAL SALES—INADEQUACY . OF PRICE.—In the ' absence of fraud and . unfairness, mere inadequacy of price, however gross, .does not : invalidate a judicial sale. .2. JUDICIAL SALES — CONFIRMATION—DISCRETION OF cOuRT. — The chancery court may exercise discretion ifi confirMing ' or rejecting judicial sales, which disscretion Must be ekercised• according to fixed rules and not arbitrarily. JUDICIAL SALES—REFUSAL TO CONFIRM.—Where, a judicial sale was made for a grossiy inadeqUate p . rice, a • nd defendant was misled and prevented from attending the sale by' the failure , of . the other parties in interest-or the' corhiiiissiOner to notify hirn of' the time and place of sale as agreed, there' was• no error 'in refusing to confirm the sale. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Cowl; Fi-ank Dbdge, Chancellor; affirmed. * W. A. Singfield, for appellant,' Tim F. Digby, for appellee. KIRBY; J. ThiS appeal cOmes fram a deCre v e refusing cOnfirmation of a sale of real:estate bY the court's Commissioner in a suit for partition. . Appellee, one of the defendaatS in the snit, objected to the confirmation of the sale, alleging that it was agreed that he should be notified of- the time and place of sale, which was not done, and he was thereby prevented from attending it; that no other person was present and bidding on the propeitY except Ike Hawkins, to whom it was g old for the .sum of $200,-which was ' a grossly inadequate price for the property, and , submitted 4 : bid of $250, 25 per cent. more than the priee. for which the property was Sold. The court refu g ed to confirm *the' sale, which it ordered set aside, and directed the commissioner ,to re-advertise' and sell- the land again as provided:in the original decree. . The rule, as stated in Wells v. .Lerto ' x,.108 Ark. 366, 159 S. W. 1099, Ann. Oas..1914B, 11,'in *reference to judi.- 'cial- sales, "is that, in the . absence of ' fraud , and unfair-
846 [179 ness, mere inadequacy of price, however gross, does not invalidate the sale." Rut the court has and may exercise discretion in either confirming or rejecting judicial sales, which discretion Must be exercised according to fixed rules, and not arbitrarily, and the bidder has the right to insist upon its exercise in such manner only. George v. Norwood, 77 Ark. 216, 91 S. W. 557, 113 Am. St. Rep. 143, 7 Ann. Cas. 171 ; Chapin v. Quisenberry, 138 Ark. 68, 210 S. W. 341. The sale was not only for a grossly inadequate price; but appellee was misled and prevented from attending it by the failure of the other parties in interest or the com, missioner to notify him of the time and place of the sale, as was agreed to be done, thus permitting appellant to attend the sale and bid without competition for the prop erty, working a hardship against the owners of the property, and the.court did not err in refusing to confirm the sale. Chapin v. Quisenberry, supra; Mobre v. McJud-kins, 136 Ark. 293, 206 S. W. 445 ; Stevenson v. Gault, 131 Ark. 398, 199 S. W. 112, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 433; Hawkins v. Jones, 131 Ark. 478, 199 S. W. 549. The decree is affirmed.
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.