A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF AUCTIONS. WITH AN APPENDIX OF PRECEDENTS. BY RICHARD BABINGTON, ESQ. OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, SPECIAL PLEADER. LONDON: HENRY BUTTERWORTH, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER, N° 7, FLEET STREET, NEAR TEMPLE BAR. 1826. DB PREFACE. To the Profession of which he is a member, the Author commits this little Volume, with that anxiety and diffidence which naturally attend a first effort to gain public favour, but at the same time with the most perfect confidence, that those imperfections which may be, found in the following pages, will be viewed by that Profession with candour and indulgence. The Author will not attempt to frame an apology for the publication of this Treatise, well knowing that, in the absence of intrinsic merit, his views and motives can never entitle it to favour. The many important decisions which have at different times been made upon the Law of Auctions, and the various acts of parliament which have from time to time been passed for regulating auction sales, are in this work, for the first time, brought together. Those cases which have been over-ruled are referred to very briefly, while on the other hand the cases which are yet considered as law are generally stated rather fully, and the language of the courts is retained as far as possible. Since that portion of the Work went to the press, in which the practice of puffing at auctions is treated (p. 52), and in which the Author has expressed an opinion, that the appointment of one puffer is illegal, the question has come before Lord Chief Justice Best at nisi prius, in the case of Crowther v. Austin, which was an action brought by the vendor against the purchaser of a horse sold by auction, to recover the price; when his Lordship nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that a puffer had been employed by him to bid at the sale, and has thus sanctioned the Author's opinion. Upon a motion which was made in the last term, for a rule to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, the Court of Common Pleas granted the rule nisi, in order to settle the question; but all the Judges declared so decided an opinion that the nonsuit was right, that it is believed the plaintiff's counsel do not intend to bring the case again before the Court. HARE COURT, TEMPLE, 2d March, 1826. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page 4. Of the vendor's remedy against the auctioneer for wrongful sale and disposition; and, in |