Copping v. Hillsboro Clay Manufacturing Co.

Hoke, J. On the findings of fact embodied in the judgment, and there is ample evidence to sustain them, the Court is of the opinion that the sale was properly confirmed. It appeared that the receiver had caused notice of the sale to be published for the usual period in two newspapers of general circulation, had posted notices at the courthouse door and three other public places in the county of Orange, where the plant was situated, for thirty days and had mailed a copy of the decree, containing a notice of the time, place and terms of sale to each of the known creditors and stockholders, and had duly notified and *331 conferred with, various other parties whom he thought would likely be interested in that kind of property. The sale was fully advertised and fairly conducted, and while the amount bid may not have been adequate in respect to the original cost of the plant, it was shown that it was a kind of property which rapidly deteriorated in value, and neither the history of the enterprise nor its prospects gave promise that there would be any increase of the bid. Both the creditors and stockholders are entitled to have the matter adjusted and no good reason is shown for longer delay. While mere inadequacy of price may at times afford good reason for refusing to confirm a sale, it is not always or necessarily allowed as controlling. The question of confirmation rests largely in the sound legal discretion of the lower court and, on the facts stated, we are of opinion that this discretion has been properly exercised in the present case. Our decisions are also in favor of his Honor’s ruling, and the judgment confirming the sale must therefore be affirmed. Uzzle v. Weil, 152 N. C., p. 131; Trull v. Rice, 92 N. C., p. 572; Vaughan and Barnes v. Gooch et al., 92 N. C., p. 524; Pritchard v. Askew, 80 N. C., p. 86. Judgment affirmed.