James v. Nease

• Decision Date: 04 June 1902
• Citation: 69 S.W. 110
• Parties: JAMES v. NEASE et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

69 S.W. 110

JAMES v. NEASE et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Bexar county; S. J. Brooks, Judge.

Proceeding by John H. James, executor, against E. A. T. W. Nease and others. From the judgment, the executor appeals. Reversed.

Ball & Ingrum, for appellant. Denman, Franklin & McGown and Geo. C. Altgelt, for appellees.

NEILL, J.

This is a probate proceeding originating in the county court. Appellant, in pursuance of orders of sale made by the county court in the matter of the estate of James P. Hickman, deceased, as executor of the estate, on October 1, 1901, made a public sale of certain real property belonging to the estate, situated in the city of San Antonio, and known as the "Southern Hotel." Geo. C. Altgelt, one of appellees, at the sale bid $35,800 cash for the property, which was the highest bid therefor, and it was declared sold to him. The executor reported the sale, as he was required by law, to the county court, and asked that it be inquired into, and such order made as might be deemed meet and proper. Upon hearing testimony adduced by the executor, Geo. C. Altgelt, and Mrs. Nease (a mortgage creditor of the estate), the county court, on the 11th day of November, 1901, confirmed the sale, and ordered the executor to make deed to the purchaser upon his complying with its terms. From this order of confirmation the executor appealed to the district court, where the matter was tried de novo on the 22d day of February, 1902, when, after hearing all the evidence adduced by the respective parties, a decree was entered confirming the sale. From this decree of confirmation the executor of the estate has appealed to this court.

The appellant claims that the sale was not for the fair market value of the property. This is the only issue in the case. If the contention of appellant is sustained by the evidence, the judgment should be reversed; if it is not, it should be affirmed. The following is an epitome of the testimony upon the issue: Three witnesses for appellant fix the value of the property at from $45,000 to $50,000, one at $40,000, the appellant at $45,000, and D. R. Fant at $38,000. Five witnesses for appellee fix it at from $35,000 to $40,000 (among them is appellee Altgelt himself), one at $35,000, and another at from $30,000 to $35,000. It is made the duty of the county judge, at a regular term of his court, to inquire into the manner in which a sale of this character is made, and to hear evidence in support of or against the report of it, and if satisfied that such sale was fairly made, and in conformity to law, to enter upon the minutes of the court a decree confirming such sale. Article 2144, Rev. St. This is held to include the fairness and adequacy of the price at which the land is sold, as well as its conformity to law, and the absence of fraud or any unfairness in manner of making the sale. If the land was sold for an unfair or inadequate price, the sale was not "fairly made," and for that reason should not be confirmed. Hirshfield v. Davis, 43 Tex. 155. In administration sales it is a matter of prime importance that the property should bring its fair market value. The interests of creditors and heirs or legatees and devisees require this. When the estate of a decedent is in administration, those interested in it can only look to the courts to guard and protect their interests, and they have a right to expect that the property of the estate will be so managed and disposed of that its fair adequate market value will be obtained by the court, and distributed among those entitled to receive it. If the property is not sold for its fair market value, the loss does not fall upon the court administering it, but those entitled to receive the property or its value. In such an event an injury is done, and that it comes from a source originated for the purpose of preventing injuries and wrongs renders it none the less an injury. Courts cannot be too careful in guarding the rights of those interested in the property of an estate under administration. The duty they have to perform is in the nature of a trust of the most sacred character, and that they are in no way liable for its breach is a greater reason for its faithful performance. When one purchases at an administrator's or executor's sale, he knows that he has no title unless the sale is confirmed, and, if there is a conflict between his interest and that of the estate, preference must ordinarily be given in favor of the latter. Hirshfield v. Davis, supra. He is in a position to look out for his own interest, and knows that in passing upon the sale the court must guard and protect the interest of the estate, and in doing so will reject the sale if the property did not bring its fair market value. The purchaser takes the chances of the court's finding he has purchased at a fair price. If the consideration should be adjudged inadequate, and the sale rejected on that account, he is in no attitude...