Show I 1 ill KELLY VS KERSHAW A s trus action of tle court in this I 1 case je I 1 in the last issue it was reported that the district court had set asinethe asi dethe marl hills gale made in I 1 against Kersh awand wife in this a mistake occurred for a previous motion made by kelly and wife to set ida the sale because it was ille gal had been overruled but ott these last motions C S varian a of that part of tile prope r I 1 on blain street fourth an I 1 fifth its the pu shop refused to pay his bill and moved to set asido the age which the court did not do but ordered a resale pursuant to ejection of the civil procedure act of im which rada it the purchaser setups to pay the behim dortho property betru k off to hain at a we under execution the officer may again sell the perty at any time to the highest property Ero any loss be occasioned thereby ilia officer may recover the I 1 amount of such loss ith costs from it the bidder so refusing so if on a resale it fails to brin price bid by mr varian he will re D gible in a suit by the marshal st her to kelly and wife or kershaw still wife as they are all the bourt decided that although a ray bond had been executed by ker I 1 and rifet yet as kelly and wife I 1 their attorney C demanded that the marshal make the rule and as kershaw and ile had ratified ruti fied the sale it was iliac a valid binding sale but as varian had refused to pay his bid the property must be under the above see tion of the statute but the order in no yn a acer releases mr varin from his responsibility but reserves I 1 lite legal rights of all parties this case bas developed some re rolar kable chapes of the law which our readers ought to note especially iss to the responsibility of I 1 at officers sales 11 1 ra I 1 1 I 1 |