Dooley v. Bell

• Decision Date: 23 March 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 284,87 Ga. 74
• Parties: Dooley v. Bell.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

13 S.E. 284

87 Ga. 74

Dooley v. Bell.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 23, 1891

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where land was sold by one professing to act as guardian for others, when in fact he was not, for the reason that his alleged appointment as such was absolutely void, the sale itself was likewise void, and passed no title to the purchaser thereat, although he bought in good faith, and without actual notice of any defect in the guardian's appointment or his authority to sell.

2. Such purchaser cannot recover land thus sold from one holding the legal title thereto, and the former certainly should not complain of a decree directing a sale of the property, and a return to him of the full amount he paid, with interest thereon.

Error from superior court, Fulton county; M. J. Clarke, Judge.

Lumpkin J.

1. The proposition contained in the first head note has been settled by this court in the case of Bell v. Love, 72 Ga 125. The appointment of the guardian, and all his acts as such, were void for the reason there stated.

2. In the litigation between Dooley and Bell over the land involved in this case, a decree was finally made directing that the property be sold, and that out of the proceeds thereof the entire purchase money paid by Dooley, with interest thereon be refunded to him. This, certainly, is all he had any right to expect. Indeed, it is doubtful, to say the least, if his equity entitled him to anything more than so much of his money, with interest, as was used in payment of demands to satisfy which a legal guardian would have been authorized without a special order, to encroach upon the corpus of the ward's estate. Some of Dooley's money was paid on claims to which the corpus, without such an order, was not subject. The purchaser at a guardian's sale is undoubtedly bound, at his peril, to look to the legality of the latter's appointment and his authority to sell. If he fails to exercise these precautions, no amount of good faith or fairness on his part can make his title a good one if, in fact, there was no lawful guardian, and, consequently, no authority to sell. Dooley, therefore, having obtained no title whatever by his purchase, and the record showing that a portion of the money he paid was expended in a manner which would not have been lawful even on the part of a legally appointed guardian, he is quite fortunate in receiving back all his money, with interest. This case differs...