Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/197

 174

Fink v. Evans, 95 Tenn. 413; Jones v. Bond, 40 Fed. Rep. 281." It is probable that advantage will be taken of this new field of legal industry thus opened against rail road companies. There are many dogs in the country for railroad trains to run over.

Puffers. — In Bowman v. McClenahan, 20 App. Div. 346 (New York), is a doctrine which is perfectly familiar, namely, that the employment of puffers at an auction sale is illegal and vitiates the sale; but the case discloses two facts not familiar to the legal pro fession generally, we suspect, namely, that the con trary was ever held, and that it was held by a court of equity as against the doctrine of the law courts. The courts observe on this point : — "In England, for many years, the courts of com mon law and of equity were irreconcilably opposed upon this question. It was held by the courts of common law that the employment of a puffer or bybidder at an auction sale rendered the sale void, so that the person to whom the property was struck off could not be compelled to perform his contract. The rule was laid down first by Lord Mansfield in the case of Bexwell v. Christie (Cowp. 395), and his judgment in that regard was followed consistently by the courts of common law until the matter was settled by act of Parliament. Strangely enough the courts of chancery in England adopted another and less stringent rule. It was held by these courts under the lead of Lord Loughborough, in the case of Conolly v. Parsons

(3 Ves. Jr. 625, n. 1),. that the mere employment of a puffer for the purpose solely of protecting the inter est of the owner, and not for the purpose of improp erly enhancing the price, was legitimate, and would not avoid the sale, although it was done privately and without notice of the fact being announced. This rule of the Court of Chancery was followed in that court with more or less hesitation, and the question there remained in dispute until 1867, when it was settled by act of Parliament, reciting the conflict in the courts of law and equity in regard to the question, and providing substantially that whenever a sale by auction would be invalid by reason of the employment of a puffer, the same. should be deemed invalid in equity as well as in law. This statute settled the law of England upon that subject.'' The principal case also discloses the fact that at first the Pennsylvania courts held that it was not ille gal to employ puffers to protect the owner's interest. It is a little singular that there is no authoritative de cision on the question in New York. The doctrine of the principal case, however, is sustained by the United States Supreme Court (Veazie v. Williams, 8 How. 134), and by the courts of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Kentucky, West Virginia. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Maryland and North Carolina. There can be no reasonable dissent from the statement in the principal case that "the only safe rule is the one announced by Lord Mansfield " (Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp. 395). No other judge was so seldom wrong as this greatest of all lawyers. It is an illustration of the permanency of things in England that there is still an auction room in London carried on in the name of Christie.

9=P,