in original) (quoting Bonham v. Cave, 102 S.C. 308, 311-12, 86 S.E. 681, 682 (1915)); see also 50A C.J.S. Judicial Sales § 79 (1997) (“A mistake or some surprise or accident in connection with a judicial sale is ground for setting it aside, either before or after confirmation, provided the mistake was an injurious one, and would result in no substantial hardship other than rescinding the bargain.”). In this appeal, we must analyze the special referee’s actions in conjunction with his order of sale. Although the referee acted as his own selling officer, he was still bound by the limits of his written decree of sale. When the public has been informed through the order and the advertisements, the rules of the foreclosure sale are set. See Ex parte Keller, 185 S.C. 283, 194 S.E. 15 (1937) (<HOLDING>); Hudson v. Inman, 179 S.C. 399, 184 S.E. 102
recognizing the legal principle that an order of sale is a public document and all bidders as well as other persons are charged with notice of its terms holding that the notice afforded by a document determines its sufficiency as a notice of appeal recognizing original bidders as parties in interest and upholding bankruptcy court determination that judicial sale be overturned where original bidders did not receive notice major question found to be one of common decency recognizing principle recognizing same principle