Cannon v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 30 June 1830
• Citation: 16 N.C. 422
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ISAAC CANNON ET AL. v. JOHN JENKINS ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS OR CHARLES JENKINS, AND JESSE ROUNTREE, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM ROUNTREE.

16 N.C. 422

ISAAC CANNON ET AL.

v.JOHN JENKINS ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS OR CHARLES JENKINS, AND JESSE ROUNTREE, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM ROUNTREE.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AT RALEIGH

JUNE TERM, 1830

1. An executor who buys at his own sale, however openly or fairly, holds the property at the election of the legatee; and one who purchases in conjunction with him is subject to the same rule.

2. But where an executor at his own sale bid fairly, for the purpose of enhancing the price, and the property being struck off to him, sold it the same day, without collusion, to one who had bid against him, although the executor would have held it subject to an account, yet his purchaser, the sale being a distinct transaction, acquired an absolute title.

3. Sales of slaves in lots are not favored in equity, because slaves generally sell better singly; and the person who conducts such sales does it at the peril of answering for the true value. But where the slaves are sold in families, although the executor has no right to consult his feelings at the expense of the legatees, yet he will not be charged the full value unless the interest of the legatees is manifestly injured by the mode of sale.

4. Executors are justified by sales at auction in the usual way. But if they depart from this method, and sell at private sale, they are answerable for the full value.

5. The representatives of an administrator cannot be compelled to account with any person but an administrator de bonis non.

From PITT. The plaintiffs, who were the legatees of Willie Cannon, alleged that the said Cannon died, having published his will, which was proved by the intestate, Charles Jenkins, to whom letters of administration with the will annexed issued, the executor therein appointed having renounced; that directly after the issuing of the letters of administration the administrator, under the pretense of executing the will, but with an intention of fraudulently making a profit to himself, advertised four young negroes, viz., Jacob, Phil, Tom, and Sam, who were directed by the will to be sold upon a credit of ten days; that in pursuance of this fraudulent intent, and to prevent the said slaves from bringing their value, they were sold in one lot, and were bid off by the administrator himself at the price of $1,025; that William Rountree, the intestate of the defendant Jesse, was present at the sale of the slaves, and immediately thereafter took the whole of them into his possession. The plaintiffs averred that the whole of this transaction was a pretense to cover the profit made by the administrator upon a private sale of the negroes by him to Rountree, and they prayed that the sale might be declared to be void and the defendant Jesse decreed to be a trustee of the slaves for their benefit, and that the administrators of Charles Jenkins might account with them for their intestate's administration of Willie Cannon's estate.

The answers denied altogether the agreement between Jenkins and Rountree, as charged. The defendants admitted that the four negroes were offered together at public sale; but they stated the reason to have been that they were four brothers, whereof the eldest was not more than eight, and the two youngest, twins, about four years of age. They also admitted that at the public sale Jenkins became a bidder, and the last bidder, at $1,025; but they stated that he bid only for the benefit of the estate, and to run up the property; that he did not intend to make, nor did he make, an advantage to himself by the purchase; that the bidding was conclusively for the benefit of Rountree, for that Jenkins and Rountree were bidders against each other; that the credit of that sale was six months, and not ten days; that it was fairly conducted, Jenkins' bids openly given, and dwelt upon by his directions, and that he urged persons to bid upon himself, and, finally, the price at which the negroes were knocked down to Jenkins was a fair and full one, and that after Jenkins was declared the purchaser, and on the same evening, he sold the negroes at the same price to Rountree, who immediately gave his bond, received the negroes, and held the exclusive possession, for his sole use, up to his death, nearly thirteen years afterwards.

The administrators of Charles Jenkins denied that anything was due from their intestate to the plaintiffs, but submitted to an account. Upon replication, proofs were taken, the substance of which is stated in the opinion of the Court.

RUFFIN, J. The bill is framed upon the rule in Ryden v. Jones, 8 N. C., 497, and moreover charges an actual fraud in the purchase by Jenkins at under-value, by means of a sale of all the negroes in a lump, on ten days credit. The doctrine of that and similar cases is recognized throughout. An executor buys at his own risk, and no matter how openly, nor for how full price, he holds purely at the election of the legatee. Nor could this case be distinguished from those by the introduction of Rountree as a third person, provided he purchased in conjunction with the administrator. He who knowingly connects himself with a trustee in a breach of trust (and he must do it knowingly, if he purchase from him on joint account) must abide the fate of his faithless companion, whatever form the transaction may assume.

[His Honor, after stating the substance of the answer, as above, proceeded:] Without scanning the depositions minutely, it is sufficient to say that the answers are fully sustained by the proofs.

And the witnesses disclose another fact not mentioned in the

answers, which strongly rebuts the charge of collusion, which is that Jenkins' last bid was $25 upon that of Rountree...