Crockett v. Sheriff

• Decision Date: 08 January 1910
• Citation: 66 S.E. 666,151 N.C. 615
• Parties: CROCKETT. v. BRAT, Sheriff, et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

151 N.C. 615

66 S.E. 666

CROCKETT.

v.BRAT, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 8, 1910.

1. Judicial Sales (§ 1*)—Defects of Title to Property Sold—Policy of Law.

The policy of the law is to remove before sale all defects of title to property sold under judicial process, to have property so sold bring the highest price, and eliminate, as far as possible, speculation in defective title to such property.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judicial Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-4; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]

2. Judicial Sales (§ 2*)—Defects of Title to Property Sold—Construction of Remedial Statutes.

Remedial statutes having such a purpose in view should be liberally construed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judicial Sales, Dec. Dig. § 2.*]

3. Quieting Title (§ 22*)—Persons Entitled to Relief — Adverse Claim — Judgment Liens—"Estate or Interest in Real Estate."

Under Pub. Laws 1893, p. 37, c. 6, § 1, as amended by Pub. Laws 1903, p. 1121, c. 763, providing that an action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real estate adverse to him to determine such adverse claims, and that if judgment has been docketed, whether in favor or against the person bringing the action or the person against whom such action was brought, the lien of such judgment shall be such a claim of an estate or interest in real estate as is contemplated by the act, where a creditor had his debt determined by a judgment and by attachment of land brought it within the jurisdiction of the court, and had it condemned as the property of his debtor to the satisfaction of his debt, and a third person claims the entire and absolute estate in the land, under deeds which antedate the action of the creditor and the levy of the attachment, his claim is of an "estate or interest in real estate, " within the act, and he may sue to quiet his title thereto.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Quieting Title, Cent. Dig. § 54; Dec. Dig. § 22.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2475-2488; vol. 8, pp. 7053, 7654; vol. 4, pp. 3696-3709; vol. 8, p. 7691.]

4. Fraudulent Conveyances (f 271*)—Bona Fide Purchaser—Burden of Proof.

The burden is upon a purchaser of property alleged to have.been conveyed to defraud creditors to show that he bought it for a valuable consideration and without notice.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 796-798, 821; Dec. Dig. § 271.*]

5. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 308*)—Bona Fide Purchaser—Question for Jury.

In an action to quiet title to land sold under attachment as the property of defendant's debtor to satisfy defendant's debt, where plain tiff presented a deed from defendant's debtor reciting a present consideration of $9,000, and it appeared that at that date there was unpaid on a mortgage on the land a sum amounting to several thousand dollars, and that plaintiff's purchase was subject to that debt, and plaintiff's claim that he paid a full and fair price was not denied, though his further claim that he was a purchaser without notice of any fraud was denied by defendant, whether plaintiff bought for a valuable consideration and without notice was directly raised as an issue and was for the jury.

[Ed. Note.For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. § 932; Dec. Dig. § 308.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Perquimans County; Ward, Judge.

Action by J. B. Crockett against B. F. Bray, Sheriff, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

In October, 1906, M. L. Eure conveyed to Crockett Lumber & Pile Company, a Virginia corporation, the "Eure farm" in Perquimans county, and certain personalty thereon situate, for the recited consideration of $13,000. On the same day the lumber company executed to W. T. Shannonhouse, as trustee, a deed of trust conveying all the property conveyed to It, to secure to said Eure the payment of notes aggregating $10,000, the balance of the purchase price. On January 24, 1908, said company, for the recited consideration of $9,000, conveyed and sold said real estate and sold certain personal property to J. B. Crockett and H. A. Crockett, by deed duly recorded May 24, 1908, and the said property was thereafter listed by the purchasers for taxation. On September 8, 1908, H. A. Crockett sold and conveyed his interest in said property to J. B. Crockett. On May 18, 1908, M. Makeley, Jr., brought suit in the superior court of Hyde county against the Crockett Lumber & Pile Company, which was returned not served. Alias summons was issued August 15, 1908, which was also returned not served. On August 19th the plaintiff M. Makeley, Jr., sought and obtained an attachment upon the property of the lumber company, and the same was levied by the defendant Bray, sheriff, upon the personal property and the land conveyed by the lumber company to the plaintiff, J. B. Crockett. In the action brought by Makeley, the lumber company filed no answer and entered no appearance, and it was adjudged therein that the lumber company was indebted to plaintiff Makeley in the sum of $1,350 and interest and costs, and the attached property was condemned to its payment and order of sale directed to issue. The plaintiff Crockett then brought this action, having by claim and delivery taken the personal property levied upon In the attachment, and sought to enjoin the sheriff and Makeley from selling the land, pursuant to the advertisement of Bale. The defendant denied the plaintiff was a purchaser for value, and averred that the lumber company sold the property with the in-tent to defraud and delay Its creditors, that the Crocketts were the principal officers of the corporation, the lumber company, and the deed was also, for this reason, fraudulent. The plaintiff denied all allegations of fraud, claimed he was a bona fide purchaser for value before Makeley brought this suit, that the corporation was solvent, and prayed the court to enjoin the sale of the real estate until the title of the plaintiff could be tried. His honor declined to continue the restraining order, and to enjoin the sale by the sheriff, under the process issued from the superior court of Hyde county, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

W. T. Shannonhouse, Charles Whedbee, and P. W. McMullan, for appellant.

W. M. Bond and Aydlett & Ehringhaus, for appellees.

MANNING, J. The evident trend of enlightened legislation is to remove, before sale, all defects of title to property sold under judicial process. Its object Is to have property, sold under process of the courts, bring the highest price, and, as far as possible, to eliminate speculation in defective titles to property sold by its process. The courts have been liberal in construing this remedial legislation. In Campbell v. Cronly, 150 N. C. 457, 64 S. E. 213, Mr. Justice Connor, in an able and elaborate opinion, reviews the policy and effect of this legislation and the decisions of many courts, and says: "The wisdom of enlarging the power of the court to deal with the subject is manifest. It is highly important to private right and public interest that titles shall be rendered secure and certain. * * * The unanimity with which judges have recognized the wisdom of the legislation, giving it a liberal construction, has made it effective." The first legislative act of this state looking to this end was Acts 1893, p. 37, c. 6. Under this act, the court held, in Daniels v. Baxter, 120 N. C. 14, 26 S. E. 635: "As to the fifth ground of demurrer, there is an allegation that the defendants claim that S. H. Fowler made a deed of trust, that what purports to be such is on record, and that defendants are holding under it. This is sufficient...