Hammert v. McKnight
| Decision Date | 10 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | 18494. |
| Citation | 269 P. 289,132 Okla. 14,1928 OK 456 |
| Parties | HAMMERT v. McKNIGHT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When the executor sells the estate of a decedent through the probate court, the doctrine of caveat emptor is applicable and the rule is well settled that the purchaser at such sale is entitled to and takes only such title as the decedent had. If the decedent had no title, the purchaser takes none. If the title is defective, the purchaser takes it, subject to such infirmities as exist.
Under Comp. St. 1921, § 1285, conveyances so made convey all the right, title, interest, and estate of decedent in the premises, and it is the duty of the executor to comply with the laws in reference to such a sale and to convey to the purchaser such interest as the estate of the decedent had in and to the premises, and the purchaser has a right to presume that the executor has complied with the laws relative to such sale.
If the executor, however, fails to comply with the laws relative to the sale of the land, and, for that reason, the interest of the estate of the deceased in and to the land does not pass to the purchaser, or the title thereto is defective in him and he pays the consideration therefor, and it afterwards appears that the title did not so pass, or is defective in him, he is entitled to have such consideration returned to him or the title quieted in him.
The doctrine of caveat emptor cannot be used to perpetrate a fraud. The estate of the deceased cannot retain its title to the land and at the same time retain the purchase price therefor.
In such a sale, if the title to the interest of the estate of the decedent is defective in the purchaser because of defects in the probate proceedings in the sale, and thereafter the grantee of the purchaser brings suit against the executor to have his title quieted and for damages, and the executor confesses judgment quieting title in the plaintiff, and the title is so quieted, neither the executor nor the estate is liable in damages for profits lost by the plaintiff on a prospective sale of the land.
The measure of damages for breach of a covenant of warranty is governed by Comp. St. 1921, § 5980, which provides: "The detriment caused by the breach of a covenant of seisin, of right to convey, of warranty, or of quiet enjoyment, in a grant of an estate in real property, is deemed to be: First the price paid to the grantor, or, if the breach is partial only, such proportion of the price as the value of the property affected by the breach bore, at the time of the grant, to the value of the whole property; second, interest thereon for the time during which the grantee derived no benefit from the property, not exceeding six years; and third, any expenses properly incurred by the covenantee in defending his possession." Rubey v. Irick, 63 Okl. 137, 163 P. 514.
Appeal from District Court, Caddo County; Will Linn, Judge.
Suit by B. W. Hammert against Louie E. McKnight, executor of the estate of Thomas F. Woodard, deceased. Judgment sustaining a demurrer to the amended petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Morgan & Morgan, of Anadarko, for plaintiff in error.
Simons, McKnight, Simons & Smith, of Enid, for defendant in error.
B. W. Hammert, plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, instituted this suit in the district court of Caddo county against Louie E. McKnight, executor of the estate of Thomas F. Woodard, defendant in error, as defendant.
Thomas F. Woodard at the time of his death owned in fee simple the lands involved in this litigation. In the course of administration the executor through the probate court sold the land in controversy to H. W. Morgan and Morgan subsequently sold the land to the plaintiff. The consideration in the sum of $10,455 was paid to the defendant and became a part of the assets of the estate. The petition alleged that the executor wholly failed to vest the title to the said land in the purchaser, in that the proceedings were null and void because the executor had failed to advertise the land in the form, manner, and for the period of time required by law.
In the original petition plaintiff declared upon two separate causes of action, the one for judgment quieting the title in the plaintiff and the other for damages. The defendant confessed judgment quieting the title in the plaintiff and judgment so quieting the title was rendered. The judgment became final, thereby perfecting title in the plaintiff. After the title was quieted in the plaintiff, an amended petition was filed, which eliminated the cause of action in reference to the quieting of title and alleged that the plaintiff entered into an enforceable contract with third parties for the sale of 16 acres of the tract of land at a profit of $233.84 an acre, but was unable to convey a good title because of the failure of the executor to properly and sufficiently advertise the land for sale. The executor filed a general demurrer to the amended petition, which was by the trial court sustained, and the plaintiff, standing on the petition, has appealed here.
The executor invoked the doctrine of caveat emptor as applying to judicial sales, which doctrine holds that conveyances so made transmit only such title as the decedent had and the purchaser buys only such title, if any title there be, at his peril. The plaintiff urges that the doctrine of caveat emptor has no application to the case at bar, but says it presents the application of a well-recognized exception thereto.
The rule is well established that the purchaser at judicial sales is entitled to and takes only such title as the decedent had. If the decedent had no title, the purchaser takes none. If the title is...
To continue reading
Request your trial