'693 FED^PAL SEPOBTEB, �rights of. purohasers at judicial sales where theyhave been fairly cond,iieted, and believe that want of stability in such sales is a most serious evil. The mere ,fact that a man bas made a bargain at such a sale should not induce the court to recede on its part, whatever its power to do so may be. The practice in England on this subject became so notoriously disastrous that first the court by rule, and then parliament by legislation, interfered to break it up and establish a Sys- tem of reserved bids, which answers the purpose of securing the highest price, and protects the sale from the chilling influ- ences of instability and uncertainty. �The court now, upon application of the parties, or of its own motion, ascertains the probable value of the property as nearly as may be, and, having determined the lowest price it is willing to take, the property is not sold, unless at public auction, it brings as much, or more, than this reserved price, which, not being revealed until after the sale, cannot influence the biddings. 1 Sug. Vend. (8th Ed.) 136, 161, 163; 2 Danl. Ch. Pr. (5th Ed.) 1286 and note; see 3 South^ ern Law Eev., 423. Under this system, which. was first adopted by general order of the court in 1851, and subse- quexitly perfeoted in 1867, by 30 and 31 Vict, 48, the bid- dings are not opened for any advance of price unless there be either fraud or such misconduct as borders on fraud. Delves v. Delves, (La^ Eep.) 20 Eq. 77. If congress or the supreme court, under its power to prescribe equity rules, should con- form our practice to this improved method of making chan- cery sales, it would relieve the courts of much embarrassment ; for, as was said by Mr. Justice Miller, "the act of confirming or setting aside a sale made by a commissioner in chancery often involves the exercise of judgment and discretion as del- icate as that called fôr by any function which belongs to the court." Railroad Co. v. Soutier, 5 Wall. 660, 662. Where there are no circumstances of fraud or misconduct the diffi- culty is increaaed, and bas always been a perplexing subject v/ith aU courts. �The ninetieth equity rule binds us to the practice as it ex- isted in England wlien the equity rules were ûrst promulgated ����
