ra EB THIRD NAT. BANK. 77T �sale should be opened, and the court accordingly set aside the sale. This is therefore the second sale that bas been made, and the court is again asked toset aside the sale on account of inadequacy of price. After the district judge had decided (although no order was entered) that the advance of $2,000 was not sufficient to warrant the court in setting aside the sale, and accordingly had disposed of the question so far as his opinion was concerned, then it seems it was intimated by counsel that there would be an additional advance made, and $3,000 more was offered bythe same person who had pre- vioufily offered the $2,000, making it $35,000 insteadof $30,- 000. Thereupon the judge was asked to reconsider his action and say that the sale should be set aside, and I am requested by the counsel on both sides, and by the judge, to advise in the matter. Let us see in what position this places the court: �After the court has ordered a sale, and it is made, and the purchaser asks that it shali be confirmed, and the court has decidëd that a certain advance is not sufficient, they then bid upon the action of the court. In other words, it becomes a sort of auction in the court as to the price at which the prop- erty should sell. I do not think this is a proper way to make jndicial sales, nor will it tend to make parties come forward, with an assurance, if they bid in good faith for property offered at a judicial sale, they will be protected in their rights; nor will it cause property to bring what it is actually worth. The very fact that people believe that a sale amounts to nothing, or that the court will, of course, set it aside, prevents property from bringing its true value ; and nothing, it seems to me, can more effectually destroy the sanctity, so to speak, of a judicial sale — nothing more injuriously affect such a sale — than to allow a practice of this kind.. �It is said that a person is now willing to make an advance of $1,000 after the sale has been confirmed and the order has been entered by the district court. I do not think that this is a proper practice; nor, admitting ail that is contended for as to the effect of the inadequacy of price, that this is a proper ����
