333 



ipon the right of the seller to act as the puffer of 

 bis goods. 



In Howard v. Castle, 6 T. R. 642, it was held, 

 :hat if the owner of goods or an estate put up to 

 .ale at an auction, employs puffers to bid for him 

 ivithout declaring it, it is a fraud on the real bid- 

 lers, and the highest bidder cannot be compelled 

 :o complete the contract/' 



This doctrine, however, is again questioned, in 

 :he case of Conolly v. Parsons, 3 Ves. 625, where a 

 distinction seems to be intended, that it is no fraud, 

 unless there happens to be but one real bidder. 



Both these cases were quoted in that of Crowder 

 y. Austin, 2 Carr. and P. 208. 



" The owner of a horse sold by auction, has no 

 right under the usual condition of a sale, that the 

 lighest bidder shall be the purchaser, to employ 

 iny person to bid for him for the purpose of 

 enhancing the price : and if he do so, he cannot 

 recover the purchase money from the buyer." 



Chief Justice Best expressed himself clearly of 

 opinion, that the action could not be maintained ; 

 he considered it a gross fraud, and nonsuited the 

 plaintiff. A rule nisi was afterwards obtained, to 

 set aside the nonsuit ; when the case of Howard 

 V. Castle, 6 T. R. 642, was quoted, and also the 

 opinions of Lord Rosslyn, in Conolly v. Parsons, 



