
    HEITMAN, Appellant, v. SIRE, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by John Heitman against Meyer L. Sire.
    A. Byrne, for appellant. No appearance for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It may be conceded that the contract to bid on the property at a judicial sale for the sole purpose of advancing the price was void as against public policy. The evidence, however, shows that the plaintiff’s employ for the succeeding days was made afte,r that action was completed, and this agreement in no way involved the question of public policy. For this reason we think the conclusion of the learned court below was erroneous. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.  