Page:United States Reports, Volume 257.djvu/106

Rh 10. court house instead of at the state court house. The inconvenience and danger of injustice to the judgment debtor in having his land sold at the federal court house when it may lie at a great distance from there in a remote county of the State, furnish strong reason why federal and other courts should hold compliance with the injunction of the state laws as to the place of sale of realty indispensable to its validity. But in case of goods and chattels which after seizure and levy can be viewed by bidders as well at a federal court house as at a state court house, there is little ground for holding that such sales, like other proceedings under its authority, may not be properly carried on at the place where the court sits. The distinction between realty and goods and chattels in this matter is recognized in the provisions already noticed, of the Act of Congress of 1893. The first section provides that the real estate must be sold either at the county court house in the county where the land is, or on the premises. No discretion is given the court to change the sale to any other place. The second section, however, while it directs that personalty shall be sold as provided in the realty section, vests full discretion in the court to sell it elsewhere.

The case of Smith v. Cockrill, 6 Wall. 756, is relied on by counsel for respondent. That was a sale of real estate. The state law required appraisal before sale and a sale at not less than two-thirds the value thus fixed, both of which requirements were wholly disregarded by the marshal. The federal statute applying was the Act of Congress of 1828, c. 68, 4 Stat. 278, which provided that the forms of process, etc., should be the same as that used in the state courts. The requirement for appraisal of real estate and its sale at not less than two-thirds of the appraised value by a ministerial officer is much more important in protecting the rights of the judgment debtor