
    Alice Crocker et al., Resp’ts, v. Ervin G. Gollner et al., App’lts.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October 28, 1892.)
    Appeal—Foreclosure.
    This court will not review an order of the general term, affirming an order denying a motion to compel a purchaser at a sale in foreclosure tocomple'e his purchase, where in the affidavits submitted in opposition to* the motion there appeared facts which, while not perhaps exhibiting air-imperfect title, still were sufficient in their nature and as, in part, occurring after the judgment of sale in foreclosure, to move the court to relieve-the purchaser from his agreement to take the property bid off.
    Appeal from order of the supreme court, general term, second department, affirming an order denying a motion to compel a purchaser at a foreclosure sale of real property to complete his purchase.
    
      Alfred R. Page, for app’lts; Wm. C. Beecher and Brewster Kissam, for resp’ts.
    
      
       Affirming 47 St. Rep,, 887.
    
   Gray, J.

Appeal from an order of the general term, which* affirmed an order denying a motion to compel the purchaser at. the sale in foreclosure to complete his purchase, and relieving him from his bid. The motion was made by the defendants, who were-the mortgagors. Assuming that they had an interest in the sale which would give them a standing in court to insist upon such a motion, a fact about which some doubt fairly exists in view of a, general release executed by them after the mortgage sale to the purchaser, this court will not review the order they complain of.

In the affidavits submitted in opposition to their motion there appeared facts which, while not perhaps exhibiting an imperfect, title, still were' sufficient in their nature and as, in part, occurring after the judgment of sale in foreclosure, to move the court to relieve the purchaser from his agreement to take the property bid off

The court had the undoubted power to control the procgedingsin the foreclosure action and, with all the facts before it upon which its action was invoked in behalf of each party, the motion of the defendants was denied and the purchaser was relieved from, going on with his agreement. It was a matter resting in its discretion and we will not review its action here.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.  