840 PEDEBAL EEPORTEB. �4. Samb— AoT op 1841— Rbpeal—" Final Consummatios. "— A case Is not " oontinued to its flaal consummatiori," within the meaning of the aot repealing the bankrupt law of 1841, although the bankrupt may iave been diBcharged and his estate distributed, go long as there re- mains any order, decree, or action for the court, in the proper and usual exercise of its jurisdiction in llke cases, to enter or to take, or any redress or relief to be given to any party or person properly apply- ing to the court theref or in the case. �6. Same — Salb of Real Estatk — Notice of Sale — Misdesokiption. — An �ofScial assignee in bankruptcy, under the rules of the court, pro- ceeded to sell an interest in certain real property at public auction. It was described in the bankrupt's achedule of assets as " my joint interest in Hunter purchase of lots in Chicago in Co. B. Hyde, man- aged by Charles Butler, agent in New York, and William B. Ogden, agent in Chicago; cost, originally, $20,000. This daim may be alreadj legally held by Edward Eldridge, of Boston, under my assignment to him of ninth June, 1838." In the adrertised notice of saleit was referred to as the bankrupt's interest "in sundry lots in Chicago, 111., pur- chased with Simeon Hyde, and assigned to Henry Eldridge, Boston." This notice also referred to the papers on flle in the office of the court fbr a more certain and full description of the interest advertised for sale. The interest in the property in question never really had been assigned to Eldridge, and the advertised description was theref ore er- roneous in that particular. Held, that such interest passed under the subsequent public sale of the assignee, notwithstanding the erro- neouB description. �C Same — Samb — Non-Delivert of Dbed. — Such notice also contained the provision, " purchaser paying expenses of the formai deed of sale, if one be required, in addition to the amount of purchase." Ileld, in view of this provision, and in view of the fact that there had been a valid sale of the interest in the Chicago property, under which the price had been paid, that the mere non-delivery of a deed would not authorize a re-sale of such interest. �7. Laches — ^Application to Annul Dbeds. — Although the dooti ine of �laches may have some application to a petition to annul deeds inad- vertently given under the pretended authority of a court, to which its sanction was improperly obtained, yet it is clear that that pri nciple can have far less force in such case than in a prooeeding between vendor and vendee, where the vendee is put in possession under the deed afterwards assailed. �Certain deeds in this case set aside as having been inadvertently and illegally made. �In Bankruptey, under the act of congress passed August 19, 1841. ■ �William Allen Butler, for petitioners. �B. F. Tracy and J. W. Cook, for respondent, Chapman. ����
