Insurance: Exception in Fire Insurance Policy: "Cotton in Open Cars"
Michigan law review
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW redeemed the land had expired. Held, that the sale should not have been set aside; that as to all defects in the proceedings, complainant had a remedy at law; that mere inadequacy of consideration will not justify setting aside a sheriff's sale; and that the omission of the word "property" after "personal" in the constable's return, as shown by the transcript, was not fatal. (VICKERS, HAND, and CARTER, JJ., dissented.) Skakel v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co. et al. (I909), -Ill. -, 86 N. E. 1058. The rule seems to; be well settled in this country (the dissenting opinion admits this) that mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient to set aside an execution sale. 2 FREEMAN, EXECUTIONS, Ed. 3, ? 304 i; Execution, CENT. DIG., ? 703; Odell v. Cox, I5I Cal. 70, go Pac. 194; Jonas v. Weires et al., I34 Iowa 47, III N. W. 453; Hollster v. Vanderlin, 165 Pa. St. 248, 44 Am. St. Rep. 657. And the presumption that the sale was regular, and that there was no fraud, will be strengthened by the fact that the person whose land has been sold on ,execution had a right of redemption and failed to exercise that right. Where the only objection to a sale on execution is that the consideration was inadequate, and there was a right of redemption, the sale will not be set aside. Griffith v. Milwaukee Harvester Company, 92 Iowa 634, 54 Am. St. Rep. 573. Some courts hold that execittion sales may be set aside where gross inadequacy of consideration is coupled with material defects of process, or other circumstances tending inequitably to prejudice the rights of the execution debtor, such as failure to give him notice of the time and place of sale, collusion, etc. Roseman et al. v. Miller, 84 Ill. 297; Bullen v. Dawson, I39 Ill. 633, 29 N. E. Io38; Flint v. Phipps, 20 Or. 340, 25 Pac. 725, 23 Am. St. Rep. I24; Allen v. Clark, 36 Wis. IOI. But in Power v. Larabee, 3 N. D. 502, 44 Am. St. Rep. 577, it was held that where the consideration received on an execution sale was grossly inadequate, and where there had been gross departures from the mode prescribed by statute for conducting such sales, still such a sale could not be set aside by the courts for the reason that the law gave the party a method of protecting himself by redemption if he saw fit to avail himself of it. In the execution sale involved in the principal case, the complainant had notice of the proceedings; he might have taken advantage of any irregularities by objection at law, but he failed to do so. The mere failure to, write "property" after "personal" would not appear to seriously prejudice his rights. Accordingly, it would seem that the majority of the court were justified in the conclusions reached by them, and in holding that the execution sale should not have been set aside.