Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/705

 €98 FEDBBAIi BSPOBTEB. �& Walk. 637, is an instance where confirmation was required. There the sale was of a life interest in consols and annuities, and the question was who was entitled to the dividends on the consols earned in the interim between sale and confirmation. Lord Eldon gave them to the purchaser, on the doctrine that after confirmation the sale related back to the day of sale. This is no doubt the true solution in ail these cases of the troublesome questions growing out of the nature of the pur- chaser's title between sale and confirmation. If confirmed he must be treated as the owner from the day of sale, entitled to profits and subject to losses, unless there be some equitable cir- cumstance in the case that inducea the court, in the exercise of its power over the contract, to change the rule and withhold the profits, or exempt him from the loss. But in any event the controlof the court over the sale is the same, whatever the rights of the purchaser may be. Lord Eldon says nothing can be predicated on the confirmation in determining to whom the dividends belong. Lord Chancellor Ludgen approves this case in Vesey v. Elwood, 3 Drury & Warren, 74, and Judge Dillon in Lathrop-Y. Nelson, 4 Dill. 194. The case of Twigg v. Fijield, 13 Ves. 517, was the sale of an annuity, and confirmation was required. Mr, Sumner, in citing these cases in his note to Ex parte Minor, 11 Ves. 559, 562, says: "A purchaser, no doubt, until the master's report is confirmed, is always liable to have the biddings opened." �Where a coUiery, whieh is in the nature of a trade, bas been the subject of sale, a proposai to open the biddings will be listened to with extreme caution, as, from the hazardoua nature of such a concern, delay may occasion ruinons loss. Anon. 1 Ves. 453, note ; Wren v. Kirton, 8 Ves. 502, �The biddings were opened in the sale of a steam-boat for an advance of priee, and after confirmation re-opened because of misconduct at the first sale. Moore v. Watson, 4 Cold. 64. And in Owen v. Owen, 5 Humph. 352, the sale of a slave was set aside for inadequacy of price and because the slave was sick. �Judge Benedict, proceeding in admiralty according to the practice in equity, set aside the sale of a steam-boat, worth ����