44, 63 A. 770 (1906); 46 Am. Jur. Sales, Unknown Contents of Articles Sold, § 147; 3 Williston, Sales, Mistake Rendering Agreement Void, § 654, (rev. ed. Supp. 1965). A contract of sale, like any other contract, must rest upon the mutual agreement of the parties on all essential elements of the sale. 77 C.J.S., Sales, Mutual Assent or Agreement, § 24, including the identity of the thing sold. American Nat. Bank of Nashville v. West, 31 Tenn. App. 85, 212 S.W.2d 683, 4 A.L.R.2d 314 (1948). There was no meeting of the minds, no contract and thus no sale of the engines.

In holding that the owners had the right to exercise the above reservation after sale, the court stated: "It seems to be a settled rule in this state as well as elsewhere that conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard them. Whitfield v. May, 19 Tenn. App. 431, 89 S.W.2d 764; American Nat. Bank of Nashville v. West, 31 Tenn. App. 85, 212 S.W.2d 683, 4 A.L.R. 2d 314; Vanleer v. Fain, 25 Tenn. 104; United States v. Blair, 10 Cir., 193 F.2d 557; Erie Coal Coke Corp. v. United States, 266 U.S. 518, 45 S.Ct. 181, 69 L.Ed. 417." The court further stated:

See Huthmacher v. Harris's Adm'rs, 38 Pa. 491 (1861) (purchaser of "drill machine" held not entitled to money and other valuables later found secreted inside); Evans v. Barnett, 22 Del. (6 Penne.) 44, 63 A. 770 (1906) (purchaser of table at estate sale held not entitled to money later found inside a pocketbook that was in table drawer); Hoeppner v. Slagle, 141 Ind. App. 622, 231 N.E.2d 51 (1967) (purchaser of house at tax sale held not entitled to stock certificates and bonds later found in dresser drawers, books, magazines, and newspapers inside the house); American Nat'l Bank v. West, 31 Tenn. App. 85, 212 S.W.2d 683, 4 A.L.R.2d 314 (1948) (purchaser of box of clothing at estate sale held not entitled to two valuable rings later found in bathrobe pocket).See Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281, 30 Am. Rep. 172 (1878) (finder of money in an unmarked envelope prevailed against the purchaser of the envelope; held it was unreasonable to believe that purchaser had bought the money in the envelope, when the envelope was among old papers the purchaser had bought to use in manufacturing paper); Livermore v. White, 74 Me. 452, 43 Am. Rep. 600 (1883) (true owner of tanned leather hides unintentionally left in vats sold to third party prevailed against finder of hides);

To sustain the complainants' argument under these circumstances would render the announced conditions under which the auction was held as meaningless, and we find no merit in the complainants' insistence that their bid was confirmed. It seems to be a settled rule in this state as well as elsewhere that conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard them. Whitfield v. May, 19 Tenn. App. 431, 89 S.W.2d 764; American Nat. Bank of Nashville v. West, 31 Tenn. App. 85, 212 S.W.2d 683, 4 A.L.R. (2d) 314; Vanleer v. Fain, 25 Tenn. 104; United States v. Blair, 10 Cir., 193 F.2d 557; Erie Coal Coke Corp. v. United States, 266 U.S. 518, 45 S.Ct. 181, 69 L.Ed. 417. The general rule is stated in 5 Am. Jur., as follows: