Reeside v. Peter

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the action of the Court below, overruling exceptions to the report of sale made by the trustee under a deed of trust, and finally ratifying the sale. All of these exceptions, but the third, sixth and eighth, refer to questions of fact, depending upon proof, and being totally unsustained, were properly overruled by the Court below. . The third exception alleges the insufficiency of the public notice or advertisement of the sale of the property, a copy of which accompanies the report of the trustee.

Although there is no positive evidence that the sale of the property by the trustee was for an inadequate price, or that the trustee designed to omit any duty incumbent upon him, in the fair discharge of the trust, yet, as the deed which prescribed his duties required the property, in default of payment of the debt, to be sold “at public auction, after one month’s public notice, to be given in some newspaper circulating in the county, and in the neighborhood of the lands, and otherwise, as the trustee shall think right,” it was necessary that he should strictly pursue the directions prescribed. By such a compliance alone could the property be legally disposed of. The fact that the first notice omitted the name of the mortgagor by his request, however it may have shown a disposition to gratify him, yet the interests of the parties concerned required proper public notice of the sale of the property. The advertisement of sale is addressed to the public, and should of itself contain sufficiently definite terms of description, without further reference, to apprise the public of the property to be sold, and any description by the notice which informs the public of the property to be sold, is sufficient.

The authority by which the property is sold — a description thereof, full enough to be understood by the public — its popular name, if any — its proximity to other known property— the name of the occupant at the time, or any other