
    PACKARD v. LYON et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
    June 28, 1911.)
    Judicial Sales (§ 46)—Resale—Grounds.
    Where one, moving for a resale of property sold at a judicial sale, disclosed a sufficient interest in the property to maintain the motion, and showed that he had expected a third person to bid in the property according to agreement, but he failed to do so, and that the property sold for much less than its value, a resale should be ordered.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judicial Sales, Cent. Dig. § 87; Dec. Dig. § 46.]
    Smith, P. J., and Sewell, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Special Term.
    Action by Nathan J. Packard, substituted for the Ulster County Savings Institution, against Anna E. Lyon and others. From an order denying a resale, the party aggrieved appeals.
    Reversed, and motion granted.
    Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, SEWELL, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
    Alfred D. Van Burén, for appellant.
    G. D. B. Hasbrouck and E.- E. Ougheltree, for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion the appellant had sufficient interest in the property to make the motion for a resale and to appeal to this court. Manifestly the appellant expected that Schantz was to bid in property according to his agreement. He failed to make any bid at all. The property sold for much less than its conceded value. Under the circumstances, a resale should have been ordered. The order should therefore be reversed, and the motion granted.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. All concur, except SMITH, P. J., and SEW-ELL, J., who dissent.  