Unless the property be expressly or impliedly offered for sale without reserve (q), it appears settled that the employment of a bidder to prevent its going at an undervalue is allowable in Equity (r); but the rule is not so extended as to authorize the employment of more bidders than one, even although they are limited to the same sum (s); nor even of a single bidder for the purpose of enhancing the price indefinitely (t): but, on a Bale in lots, several bidders might, it is conceived, be employed for different parts of the property, provided that no lot were protected by more than one bidder: at Law, the rule as respects the employment of a single bidder seems unsettled; Sir Edward Sugden seems to consider that the authorities preponderate in favour of the practice (u); however, in a very recent ease, the Court of Exchequer maintained the contrary doctrine, and laid down broadly that the employment of a single bidder to protect the property would vitiate the sale at Law, unless the intention to do so were expressly notified: but this opinion was extra-judicial; the sale, (in the ease before the Court,) having been advertised as to be made without reserve (v).

Equity, in fact, seems to favour the employment of a person to protect the property; for it has refused to enforce specific performance against a vendor, in the several cases of his known agent having bid for the purchaser and been mistaken for a puffer (w), and of the person actually employed to bid for the vendor having neglected so to do (x): so, in a converse case, where, upon a sale of estates belonging to several vendors, the person employed to protect one estate, by mistake purchased another, the bill against him for specific performance was dismissed (y).

Loss of, by insolvency of auctioneer.

Puffers.

One bidder allowed in equity for protection, unless the sale is without reserve.

Rule different at law; semble.

Purchasing by mistake, specified performance not enforced against.

(p) Supra, p. 82.

(q) Meadows v. Tanner, 5 Madd. 34; Robinson v. Wall, 2 Phill. 372; and see Thornett v. Haines, 13 Mees. & W. 3G7.

Woodward v. Millar, 2 Coll. 279; and see Sug. 15, 16; and earlier cases there cited.

(s) Wheeler v. Collier, 1 Mood. &

Malk. 123; and see 15 Mees. & W. 372; and Sug. 17.

(f) 12 Ves. 483.

(u) Sug. 16.

(v) Thornett v. Haines, 15 Mees. & W., see pp. 371, 372; and see Wheeler v. Collier, 1 Mood. & Malk. 123.

(w) Twining v. Morrice, 2 Bro. C. C. 326.

(y) Malins v. Freeman, 2 Kee. 25. (x) Mason v. Armitage, 13 Ves. 25.