#### DAISY V. KOONCE and Her Husband, F. P. KOONCE, v. HENRY K. FORT.

(Filed 1 November, 1933.)

Appeal and Error J b—

In a suit to foreclose a mortgage an order of tbe trial court that tbe bidder at tbe sale or resales be required to secure bis bid before acceptance of tbe same, is within the sound discretion of tbe trial court, and is not reviewable.

Appeal by defendant from 6Wady, J., at June Term, 1933, of Cak-teket.

Affirmed.

This is'an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant to secure the payment of his note to the plaintiff, Daisy Y. Koonce. See Koonce v. Fort, 204 N. C., 426, 168 S. E., 672.

The action was heard on exceptions duly filed by the defendant to the report of the commissioners • of the sale made by them under the orders of the court on 1 May, 1933. The exceptions were overruled, and the sale was confirmed.

From judgment directing the commissioners to convey the land described in the complaint to the purchaser at the sale, upon her compliance with her- bid, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Warren & Warren and li. A. Nunn for plaintiff.

Wm. B. Snow for defendant.

Pee Cueiam.

The exceptions to the orders made in this action directing the commissioners to require the last and highest bidder at the sale or resales of the land described in the complaint, to secure his bid, before their acceptance of the same, were properly overruled. These orders were made by the court in the exercise of its discretion, which is not affected by C. S., 2591. Koonce v. Fort, 204 N. C., 426, 168 S. E., 672.

The order confirming the sale, and directing the commissioners to convey the land described in the complaint to the purchaser upon her compliance with her bid, is

Affirmed.