## Facts

- Nathaniel L. Williams and Stephen Williams owned two mill privileges at Old Town Falls in Orono, Maine and offered them for sale at public auction in Bangor on January 1, 1836.
- The sellers sent an agent to manage the sale and employed an auctioneer, Head, instructing him to accept at least $14,500.
- Genuine bidding rose to $20,000 and then stopped.
- The auctioneer continued the bidding with undisclosed fictitious bids, increasing the apparent competition until the property was struck off at $40,000.
- Samuel Veazie purchased at the inflated price and paid on the transaction.
- Veazie later learned (around 1840) that bids above $20,000 were not genuine and filed a bill in equity in 1841 seeking rescission or recovery of the excess over the highest real bid.
- Veazie executed a release to the auctioneer chiefly to facilitate the auctioneer’s testimony; the auctioneer was not named as a defendant.
- The circuit court dismissed the bill; Veazie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether undisclosed fictitious bidding by an auctioneer to raise the sale price constitutes fraud warranting equitable relief for the purchaser.
2. Whether the sellers are responsible in equity for the auctioneer’s fraudulent by-bidding when the auctioneer acted as their agent and the sellers retained the proceeds.
3. Whether the lapse of time between sale, discovery, and suit barred relief by laches.
4. Whether the purchaser’s release of the auctioneer barred recovery against the sellers.
5. Whether the auctioneer was a necessary party defendant to grant complete equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and held the auctioneer’s undisclosed fictitious bidding was a fraud on the purchaser.
- The Court held the sellers were responsible as principals for their auctioneer’s acts where they received and kept the benefit of the inflated price.
- The Court rejected laches because the fraud was discovered years after the sale and suit followed within a reasonable time after discovery.
- The Court held the release given to the auctioneer to enable testimony did not bar the purchaser’s recovery against the sellers.
- The Court held the auctioneer was not a necessary defendant for granting relief between purchaser and sellers.
- The Court directed equitable relief requiring refund and cancellation of obligations to the extent the price exceeded the highest genuine bid ($20,000).

## Legal Principles

- Equity will relieve an auction purchaser where false measures are used to raise the auction price through undisclosed fictitious bidding.
- By-bidding or puffing by the seller, or caused by or ratified by the seller (including through an agent), is fraudulent and permits avoidance or adjustment of the sale in equity.
- A principal who retains the benefits of an agent’s fraud in conducting a sale may be required to disgorge the unjust gain, even absent prior knowledge of the agent’s specific misconduct.
- Laches generally does not bar equitable relief where the fraud was concealed and the purchaser sued with reasonable promptness after discovery.
- A release given to an auctioneer for testimonial competency purposes does not necessarily discharge the sellers from liability for the fraud.
- Complete equitable relief may be awarded without joining an auctioneer as a defendant when the dispute can be resolved between purchaser and vendors who received the proceeds.

## Conclusion

The Court held that undisclosed fictitious bidding used to inflate an auction price is fraudulent and that sellers who benefit from their auctioneer’s misconduct are accountable in equity, entitling the purchaser to restitution for the amount paid above the highest genuine bid and corresponding cancellation of any inflated obligations.


Veazie v. Williams, 49 U.S. 134 (1850)