impression that the minimum price was not knowledge. I cannot recollect when I first fixed or named at the sale; but it commenced at a much lower sum, which I have now forgotten, and run on up to about eighteen thousand dollars; it might have been more or less. I then received from Samuel J. Foster bids, who was the only person that bid, to my recollection, after the sum last named. Foster bid a hundred dollars, and I then advanced upon him; he then bid again, another hundred dollars, or some other sum; I again advanced upon him, and so on, till the bid got up to forty thousand dollars, when it was struck off to Samuel J. Foster. I don't recollect the terms of sale. A certain per cent. was to be paid down, but what it was I don't recollect."

communicated them to anyone who would have been likely to have communicated them to Veazie. About six months ago, J. P. Rogers, Esq., came to me, and said that he had knowledge of certain facts that I knew. I did not know what he meant. He then referred to the sale of this property. I did not tell him anything about it at that time. He called on me again; I refused, as I did not know but I might implicate myself. Afterwards, he called again, and I then told him, if Veazie would give me a writing holding me harmless, I would state the facts. He said he would give me such a writing, as attorney for Veazie, which would be good. He did so, and I then went forward and gave my deposition in a case between the parties, as to the facts of the case."

To the third interrogatory: "I don't recollect that said sale was conditional, except as I have stated. I don't recollect the sum first of- To the ninth cross-interrogatory: "Said defered, but it is my impression that it was some- fendants, nor any agent of theirs, did not rething like five thousand dollars. I don't recol-quest me to employ any by-bidder at the sale, lect what the bids were from that sum. My nor to use any other than fair and lawful impressions are, that Samuel J. Foster, Ira means to enhance the price of the said propWadleigh, John B. Morgan, and, I think, James Purrington, were the bidders. There might have been others. The highest sum bid by any person other than the purchaser was somewhere in the vicinity of eighteen thousand dollars, to the best of my recollection."

erty."

Samuel J. Foster, who was the person employed by Veazie, the complainant, to bid for him, thus testified:

To the second interrogatory: "I did attend said auction sale in the winter of 1836. It was held on the 1st day of January, 1836, at the Penobscot Exchange, in Bangor. Certain mill privileges and appurtenances, situate near or on the Old Town Falls, was the property sold."

To the third interrogatory: "The highest sum bid for said property was forty thousand dollars. I bid it, and was acting and bidding for Samuel Veazie."

To the fourth interrogatory: "Previous to the sale, I was instructed by General [*137 Veazie to bid to the amount of twenty thousand dollars. At the time of the sale, after the bidding had gone up to twenty thousand dollars, Mr. Veazie came to me, under considerable excitement, and told me to advance and bid it off. I have no distinct recollection what my first bid was, but my impression is, that

To the fifth and a half interrogatory, viz.: "What was the highest sum offered as a bid at said sale, which you received as a bid, except the bids offered by said Foster?" "It was somewhere about eighteen thousand dollars, as I have already answered. The actual bidders were about to that sum, as near as I can recollect. It is my impression that I advanced from that sum, or thereabouts. I cannot say for a certainty from what sum I so advanced. But II commenced with about five thousand dollars. think it could not have exceeded twenty thousand dollars at which the actual bidders stopped, and my impression is, that they ceased to bid beyond eighteen thousand dollars."

To the sixth interrogatory: "I never communicated said facts to said Veazie, to my Neither do the cases authorize the appointment of more than one person to guard the vendor's interests. The only possible object of appointing more than one is fraud. It is simply a mock auction. Sugd. Vend. 6th Am. Ed. 22, 23; 8 Term R. 93, 95; Wheeler v. Collier, 1 Wood. & M. 123; Jervoice v. Clarke, 1 Jac. & W. 389.

The employment of a single puffer, who bids at the sale, has been held to vitiate the sale, particularly if the estate is advertised to be sold without reserve. Rex v. Marsh, 3 You. & Jer. 331; Meadows v. Tanner, 5 Madd. 34; Sugd. Vend. 6th Am. ed. 23; and see Crowder v. Austin, 3 Bing. 368; 5 Madd. 34; Turning v. Morris, 2 Bro. C. C. 326; Mason v. Armitage, 13 Ves. 25.

Underbidding by the owner or auctioneer vitiates the sale. Trust v. Delaplaine, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 219.

The employment of a puffer to enhance the price of property sold at a public sale by auction, is a fraud upon the purchaser, and sufficient ground for relieving him from his bid. Fisher v. Hersey, 17 Hun, (N. Y.) 370; see 2 Kent's Com. 539. A mere limitation of a price of an article, to be

It advanced pretty rapidly, till it amounted to fifteen or sixteen thousand dollars. I think, between that point and twenty thousand, the bidding was not very prompt, but it went on finally from twenty thousand, till it was struck off to me at forty thousand dollars. I think I

sold at auction, is not of itself illegal. Wolfe ▼. Luyster, 1 Hall (N. Y.), 146; Hazel v. Dunham, 1 Hall (N. Y.), 655.

The English statute, 30 and 31 Vict. c. 48, s. 4, enacts, that whereas there is a conflict between courts of law and equity in respect to the validity of sales by auction of land where a puffer has bid, although no right of bidding on behalf of the owner was reserved, the courts of law holding that such sales are illegal, and courts of equity under some circumstances giving effect to them, but even in courts of equity the rule is unsettled; and whereas it is expedient that an end should be put to such conflicting and unsettled opinions, therefore, whenever a sale by auction of land would be invalid at law by reason of the employment of a puffer, the same shall be deemed invalid in equity as well as at law.

If the owner employes a person to bid for him, the sale is void, although only one such person is employed, and although he is to bid up to a certain sum only, unless it is announced at the time that there is a person bidding for the owner. Wheeler v. Collier, W. & M. 123; Howard v. Castle, 6 T. R.

did not communicate my relation to General | Exchange in Bangor. Stephen H. Williams apVeazie to anyone, until the property was peared to be acting for the defendants." knocked off. I then notified Mr. Bright, the To the third interrogatory: "The property agent of the defendants, a Mr. Williams, the was sold at auction; I was present at the sale, son of one of the defendants, and Mr. Head, the and bid I cannot say how inany times, nor auctioneer, that I bid for General Veazie, and what sums I bid; but somewhere from fifteen the parties made arrangement to meet, the to twenty thousand dollars. I don't remember afternoon of the same day, at the office of Wil- bidding over twenty thousand dollars, although liam Abbot, Esq., in Bangor, to settle and close I might have done so. Nicholas G. Norcross the business." bid; I think Myrick Emerson bid, and Samuel J. Foster, and some others; but I do not recollect who. I cannot tell how much they bid, but from where it started up along, but how far I cannot say."

Levi Young, Richard Moore, and Isaac Smith, what Mr. Wadleigh had said to him, when he who were present at the sale, were examined came up to him during the sale, and he replied on behalf of the complainants, whose evidence to me, that, on going into the room immediatecorroborated that of the preceding witnesses, ly previous to the sale, Mr. Wadleigh gave him as far as mere spectators could have any unqualified authority to purchase the property knowledge of the transaction. for him, or, in other words, had told him that, when the property was knocked off, it was to be his (Wadleigh's). He (the auctioneer) also told me that, when Wadleigh came up to him on that occasion, he said to him, 'For God's sake stop, and bid no more for me.'

Ten witnesses were examined on the part of the defendants. Stephen H. Williams, the authorized agent of the owners of the property, thus testified:

"My name is Stephen H. Williams. I am thirty-four years old. I am a merchant, and reside in Roxbury; I know the said parties. Mr. Veazie resides in Bangor, and is the president of a bank; I don't know his occupation. Mr. Williams resides in Boston, and is retired from business; he is my uncle.

"To the second interrogatory he says: In the winter of 1835-36, I was employed by the defendants to go to Bangor, and act as their agent in selling at auction certain mill privileges, at Orono or Old Town; I went to Bangor; the sale took place, January 1, 1836; the prop erty was sold by Henry A. Head, as auctioneer, and was knocked off to a man named Foster, but Mr. Veazie was the purchaser. The price was forty thousand dollars.

"To the tenth interrogatory he says: The property was knocked off to a Mr. Foster, but after the sale, much to my surprise, I found that Mr. Veazie was the purchaser. He had told me previous to the sale, that he would not give more than twelve thousand dollars for it. He immediately desired a bond for the delivery of the deed. The bond was accordingly drawn, with a penalty of fifty thousand dollars, for the delivery of the deed, at Bangor, within ten days or a fortnight. After receiving the bond, and while he was folding it up, he said to me that he thought it proper to state, now that he was secure himself, that an express had been fitted out for the purpose of purchasing this property before the news of the sale, by auction, could reach the owner; and it is my impression that he said that Mr. Wadleigh was engaged in it, but of this I am not positive. I left to go to Boston and obtain a deed and return to Bangor. I remained in Boston a day been done, I set out to return to Bangor. Between Boston and Portsmouth I found, by some conversation with the passengers, that Mr. Veazie had passed us on the road going to Boston. I accordingly made arrangements to return to Boston and meet him, and thus save my journey to Bangor. On returning to Boston I found he had left there an hour or two previous to my arrival. A day or two after, I started for Bangor again, and overtook Mr. *Veazie at Portland. We then traveled [*141 together to Bangor. During the journey, he told me that he had made up his mind to give forty thousand dollars for the property; that it had been canvassed in his family and arrangements been made to that effect, and that he had secured this Mr. Foster to hold him harmless to that amount, and that the journey he had made to Boston was to obtain knowledge that I had a deed for him, as he was suspicious, on the return of those who went on the express, that they had succeeded in their design. And by way of showing his anxiety, he told me that he had left Bangor for Boston on the evening of a large party given by his wife. He said that the value of this property to him was caused by a quarrel and lawsuit between him and WadIleigh, which rendered it of vast importance to either of them to obtain the property. He also said, that he had traced the person who con. ducted the express as far as the Tremont House and there all trace of him was lost.

"To the third interrogatory he says: On arriving at Bangor, being a stranger, I made inquiries of Mr. John Bright as to who was the most respectable auctioneer in the place, and he referred me to Mr. Henry A. Head, as the person employed in disposing of the govor two to complete the deed, which having ernment lands, and in his opinion the most desirable auctioneer. I accordingly applied to him to dispose of the property, and he consented to do so. On the day of the auction, previous to commencing the sale, he asked me what amount was to be paid to him for his services; being unacquainted with the amount of commissions usually paid to an auctioneer, I told him that he should be paid what was customary. Nothing further was said respecting his fees previous to the sale.

"To the fourth interrogatory he says: I have already answer this interrogatory in my reply to the third interrogatory.

"To the fifth interrogatory he says: I did not authorize, or request, or in any way suggest to the said auctioneer to bid himself on the said property, or employ any other person to do so, or to do or permit anything unfair, unusual, or in any way improper, to be done at the said sale to enhance the price of the said property; and I did not know, nor had I any reason to believe, that he intended to do so. 140*] "To the sixth interrogatory he says: I did not, nor did anyone authorized by me, make any bid on the said property at the said sale.

"To the seventh interrogatory he says: knew the said Wadleigh, at the time of the sale, so as to speak to him; he was present at the sale.

"To the eighth interrogatory he says: I did see the said Wadleigh, while the sale was going on, go up to the auctioneer and speak to him; the bid had then gone to thirty-nine thousand dollars. He did not go up and speak to him more than once; I am distinct in my recollection on this point.

"To the ninth interrogatory he says: I did ask the auctioneer immediately after the sale

"To the eleventh interrogatory he says: Previous to and on the morning of the sale, Mr. Veazie manifested much indifference as to the purchase of the property, observing that he would give twelve thousand dollars for it, and no more. Of course I was surprised when I found he had given forty thousand dollars for it.

ers."

John Bright, who was the agent for the owners of the property prior to the arrival of Stephen H. Williams, thus testified to the fourth interrogatory:

"To the fourth cross-interrogatory he says: auctioneers; hereby, also, releasing the said Immediately after the sale, I was informed by Head & Pillsbury from any claim for damthe auctioneer, that, when Wadleigh stopped age, by or in consequence of any of their prohim at thirty-nine thousand dollars, he (the ceedings relating to said sale of said property. auctioneer) then bid the remaining one thou- "In witness whereof, I have hereto set my sand dollars on his own responsibility,_al-hand and seal, this 21st day of July, A. D. ternately with Foster. On my return to Bos- 1841. Samuel Veazie. [L. S.]" ton, I related this (with everything else that This release was introduced into the cause had transpired) to the defendants, my employ-by agreement of counsel, filed at a subsequent stage of the proceedings; by which agreement it was admitted that neither the respondents nor their counsel had any knowledge of the existence of the release until after the [*143 publication of the evidence in the suit, and also further admitted, that the release and circumstances under which it was given might be referred to and made use of in the cause with the same effect as if the same had been put in issue by a cross bill and admitted by the answer. It will be seen by referring to the third volume of Story's Reports, p. 66, that Mr. Justice Story did not consider this agreement as a proper mode of introducing the re"I did attend the sale. I did not bid on the lease into the cause, when it came up before property, nor did I then know, nor had I cause him for argument. According to his suggesto believe, that said auctioneer was himself tion, the proper steps to do so were immediatebidding on the said property, nor that anyone ly taken by filing a supplemental bill. These was bidding on said property for the defend-remarks are here made for the purpose of conants, or was using any unfair means to run up necting the report of the case in 3 Story's Resaid property, or to enhance the price thereof." ports, 54, with this statement. 142*] *The witnesses all concurred, that there had been a great depreciation in the market value of mills and mill privileges since January 1, 1836.

"I did not, nor did anyone to my knowledge or belief, request or authorize or in any way suggest to the auctioneer, or any other person, to bid at said sale, in behalf of the defendants, or to make any fictitious or pretended bid at the said sale, or to do anything, or permit any. thing to be done, unfairly, to enhance the price of the said property."

To the fifth interrogatory:

The terms of sale were ten per cent. of the purchase money payable immediately, and twenty per cent. more upon the delivery of the deed. These two sums together made $12,000, all of which was paid by Veazie. The balance, being $28,000, was divided into two notes of $14,000 each, payable in one and two years. The first was also paid, and the interest upon the second up to the 1st of January, 1840. The amount still due was, therefore, one note of $14,000, with interest from the 1st of January, 1840. Upon this note suit was brought against Veazie, prior to the filing of the bill in this case.

These were the circumstances attending the sale, as stated by the principal witnesses.

On the 23d of July, 1841, Veazie filed he bill of complaint on the equity side of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine.

The bill stated, that, on January 1, 1836, lefendants owned two mill privileges in Maine, and on that day offered them for sale, at auetion, at Bangor, in Maine, employing one Head as auctioneer, and, by themselves or agent, in structed Head to put them up, beginning with $14,500, minimum, and prescribed certain con ditions of sale as to payment; that the complainant, relying on the good faith of defend ants and of Head, attended the sale, and bid. by one Foster as agent, and, the minimum hav ing been offered, Head continued to announce a still higher sum, and Foster, supposing it fair and honest, made a still higher bid, and so on. until said property was struck off to Foster, for the plaintiff, at $40,000. And thereupon the On the 21st of July, 1841, the following complainant, supposing the sale had been cou release was executed by Veazie to Head, viz.: ducted and the bidding made in good faith "Know all men by these presents, that I, complied with the conditions of sale, pard Samuel Veazie, of Bangor, in the County of $4,000 in cash, $8,000 more on delivery of the Penobscot, and State of Maine, Esquire, in deed, gave his note for $14,000 in one yea consideration of one dollar to me paid by Hen- with interest, which he has since paid, and lury H. Head and Nehemiah O. Pillsbury, both other note for $14,000 in two years, with in of said Bangor, auctioneers, and late copartners terest, on which he has paid the interest an in the auction business, under the firm and ally to January 1, 1840. And defendants V style of Head & Pillsbury, the receipt where-cuted a deed to complainant, and complain at of I do hereby acknowledge, do hereby release a mortgage of same to defendants to TALE and discharge said Head & Pillsbury, jointly said notes, and another of $1,900, receiv d and severally, from all damages by me sus- part of the $8,000 aforesaid. tained, or supposed to be sustained, and from ail action, or causes of action, to me accrued or accruing in consequence of any misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance, or any illegal management by them done, performed, or suffered, at the sale at auction of Nathaniel L. Williams and Stephen Williams's real estate, situated in Old Town, in said County of Penobscot, on or near Old Town Falls, so called, which was sold at auction on or near January 1st, 1836, by the said Head & Pillsbury, as

The bill further alleges, that there was » real bid at said auction for more than $16k or $18,000; but that the auctioneer, by s'am bids, run up said Foster from about $16.00 $40,000, Foster's being the only real bona fide bids over about $16,000; by means of which pretended bidding and management of the auetioneer, defendants have received from the complainant a large sum of money which they ought not to have received; and so the [144 complainant has been deceived and defrauded.

The bill further alleges, that complainant bid above $16,000, or $18,000, or any such discovered the fraud since January 1, 1840, sum; or that the auctioneer run up Foster, by and notified defendants of it, and hoped they sham bids, from $16,000, or any such sum, to would have refunded the money; but they not $40,000; or that there was no real bid above only refused to rescind, but have commenced $16,000, or any such sum. a suit on the unpaid note, which is now pending in this court, and attached complainant's property.