IN EK MOTT. e85 �In re Mott, Baukrupt. �{Diglrict Court, 8. D. New York. January 17, 1881.) �1. AssiGirEB'8 Saie— BoNA Fidb PTrKCHABEii— Okdbk op Sams. �A. and B. were adjudicated bankrapts under the bankrupt law of 1841. A. '8 undivided interest in the lands in controversy was sold to C. under an order of court dated June 13, 1868, directing the assignes "to sell the assets hereinafter referred to in each of said matters at public auction, and for cash, by advertising the same one time, 14 days prior to the day of sale, in the newspaper called the Times, published in the city of New York," being "ail the right, title, interest, etc., of each and either of said bankrupts in and to any and ail real estate in any manner described in a certain will of John Hopper," etc. A. died in 1874, leaving a wUl devising th& land. Edd, upon petition of his devisees to have the sale to C- set aside and annulled: �(1) That C. and his grantees were entitled to avail themselves of ail the beneflts that may be claimed by a bona fide purchaser upon a judicial sale, no bad faith on C'a part being averred by the petition- ers, and it appearing that he actually paid the price bid, which was not alleged to have been inadequate. �(2) That the order of sale was not invalid merely hecause it did not fis the day and hour at which the sale should take.p|a<:e. The order was a sufficient compliance with section 9 of the bankrupt act. �(3) That the sale was not invalid nlerely becauso inade at A time to which it was adjoumed by the assignee. This wasnot an appoint- ment of the ticae of sale by the assignee contrar^ to section 9 of the act. �(4) That a proper construction of the order of sale was that the assignee might put up bbth A.'s and B.'s interests for sale •to^other, and therefore the sale was not ihvalid because so made. �(5) That the order was none the less an order of court because fijgned by the judge. There is praotically no distinction in a court of bankruptcy between an order of the judge and an order of the court, and whenever the judge acts, his act is the act of the court. �(6) That, as the sale was once regularly advertised, the adjourn- ment did not make a new 14 days' advertisement necessary. �(7) That rules 62 and 70 of the rules of coiirt, speclfying certain newspapers in which notice of sale must be published, have no appli- cation to sales made under the special order of the court. �In re King, 3 Pbd. Rbp. 839, distinguished. �Wm. Fvllerton and Oeo. F. Betts, for petitioners. Douglas Campbell and E. W. Paige, for respondent. Choate, D. J. This is a petition to set aside and annul a fiais of the interest of the assignee in bankruptcy of Jordan ��� �
