Moore v. Carey
| Decision Date | 23 July 1902 |
| Citation | 42 S.E. 258,116 Ga. 28 |
| Parties | MOORE et al. v. CAREY et al. BENTLEY v. MOORE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A purchase by an administrator, at his own sale, of any interest in the property, renders the entire sale voidable at the instance of any one interested in the estate who moves within a reasonable time to set aside the sale.
2. A wife may be a bona fide purchaser, without notice, from her husband, where he is dealing with the property as his own. It follows that, while a purchase by an administrator at his own sale is voidable at the election of heirs or creditors of the estate, a deed made by him conveying the property to his wife for a valuable consideration vests the title in her, if she had no knowledge of the manner in which he acquired his title.
3. The guardian of a minor, who is the distributee of an estate, has no authority to consent that the administrator of the estate and others may purchase property of the estate at a given price; and the fact that the administrator does so purchase the property, and pays over to the guardian the part of the proceeds which would be due to the minor, does not estop the latter from seeking to set aside the purchase by the administrator at his own sale, when the minor has had no settlement with the guardian, and received no part of the proceeds of the sale so collected by him.
4. A plea claiming a set-off under the act of December 21, 1897 which provides that the value of permanent improvements placed upon the land by one who is in bona fide possession under an adverse title may be set off against the value of the land, if such permanent improvements exceed the value of mesne profits, is fatally defective where the allegations do not set forth with certainty the value of the permanent improvements alleged to have been placed upon the property.
5. When the defendant in a civil case introduces no evidence, he is entitled to the opening and conclusion of the argument.
6. In the trial of an action brought to set aside an administrator's sale upon the ground that he was a purchaser at his own sale, where it is sought to estop the plaintiff upon the ground that his guardian had collected from the administrator the amount due him as his portion of the proceeds of the sale, and had paid over the same to him after his arrival at majority, after putting him in full possession of all the facts in reference to the sale testimony by the guardian that at the time of the payment by him to his ward it was stipulated by the ward that the payment of the money should have no other effect than to pass the fund into his possession, and he should not be concluded thereby from afterwards electing to restore the money to the administrator and to set aside the sale, was relevant.
Error from superior court, Taliaferro county; Jno. C. Hart, Judge.
Action by Lee A. Bentley and others against John D. Moore and Lizzie E. Moore, his wife. From the judgment, Moore and wife and Lee A. Bentley bring error. Reversed.
Saml. H. Sibley, for plaintiffs.
Cloud & Jennings and Colley & Sims, for defendants.
Lee Anna Bentley and Martha J. Carey, a minor, the latter suing by her guardian, William A. Carey, brought suit against John D. Moore and his wife, Lizzie E. Moore, alleging that plaintiffs are the children of Martha Elizabeth Carey, who was the daughter of John R. Moore, deceased; that they are the heirs at law of their grandfather, and as such entitled each to a one-fourteenth interest in his estate; that John D Moore was the administrator upon the estate, and as such caused a tract of land to be sold, and became himself the purchaser, and thereafter sold the land to his wife, Lizzie E. Moore, who had full knowledge of the fact that he was administrator and had bought the property at his own sale. The prayer of the petition was that the deeds under which the defendants Moore and wife claimed title might be canceled, and that the plaintiffs recover a one-seventh interest in the property, with mesne profits. To this action the defendants filed pleas, which were in substance as follows: (1) The land sued for was sold at administrator's sale as alleged.
Before the property was sold, Moore, the administrator, who was also an heir at law and entitled to a one-seventh interest in the estate, agreed with six other persons, the father of both of the plaintiffs and guardian of the minor plaintiff being one of them, that they would bid in the land at the sale, if it did not bring a given price. The land did not bring this price, and, under the agreement referred to, the property was bid in by one Richards for the sum of $800. The persons for whom Richards bid in the property, not being able to resell the property, finally prevailed upon Moore to buy the property from them, and take the same at the amount which Richards paid for the property. Moore agreed to do this, and, in pursuance of this arrangement, he, as administrator, conveyed the property to Richards, and Richards conveyed the same back to Moore individually, who accounted to the estate for $800, the amount of the bid. The arrangement before the sale was that Moore should not have any further interest in the property after the sale than the one-seventh which he would have been entitled to as an heir at law. (2) Lizzie E. Moore purchased the property from John D. Moore, her husband, who conveyed the same to her by a deed; and at the time of the purchase she had no knowledge, notice, or belief whatever that the plaintiffs claimed, or would ever claim, any interest in the property, nor did she have any notice that the title which Moore had to the land was either void or voidable. She bought the land in good faith, believing that John D. Moore owned the same, and without any notice whatever that the plaintiffs, or either of them, had at the time of the sale to her any interest, right, title, or claim in or to the property. (3) William A. Carey was the duly appointed guardian of both of the plaintiffs during their minority, and represented them in the conferences and arrangements in reference to the sale, and as such guardian received from the administrator the portion of the purchase price belonging to each of his wards; and Lee Anna Bentley, upon her arrival at majority, received her proportion of the proceeds of such sale with a full knowledge of all the facts, and this conduct on her part amounted to a ratification of the purchase by Moore of the property, even if it was illegal; and the receipt by the guardian of Martha J. Carey is binding upon her, although she is a minor. (4) Lizzie E. Moore is a purchaser in good faith, and in adverse possession of the property, and since her purchase has expended a large sum of money in permanent improvements upon the property; and she prays that the value of the improvements may be set off against the mesne profits and the value of the land. Attached to this plea is a long bill of particulars, consisting of items from August, 1895, to May, 1901, aggregating several thousand dollars, all claimed to be items of expense in connection with the permanent improvements alleged to have been placed upon the land. Some of these items are such as would be clearly connected with permanent improvements; others are such as would clearly not be so connected, and still others are items of expense resulting from the ordinary and usual repairs upon a mill which was on the property. Some of the items are apparently disconnected with improvements, either permanent or otherwise, and a number of the items are for expenses incurred after the suit was filed, and represent improvements alleged to have been made since that time. The plaintiff made an oral motion to strike all of the pleas above referred to, upon the ground that they presented no defense; and made special objection to the plea attempting to set off the value of improvements, upon the ground "that the same set up a mass of expenditures, and was not so framed as to show any excess of improvements in value over mesne profits at the time of trial." An order was passed striking all of the pleas except the one which alleged that Lee Anna Bentley had ratified the sale to Moore by receiving her portion of the proceeds of the same, and the court submitted this issue to the jury. The jury returned a verdict finding in favor of Martha J. Carey for a one-fourteenth interest in the land and mesne profits, and a verdict in favor of the defendants, so far as Lee Anna Bentley was concerned. Both Lee Anna Bentley and the defendants made motions for new trials, and both motions were overruled. The defendants filed a bill of exceptions, assigning error upon the refusal of the court to grant them a new trial, and upon exceptions pendente lite, which had been duly filed, to the striking of the pleas above referred to. Lee Anna Bentley excepted to the judgment overruling her motion for a new trial.
1. It is familiar law that a purchase by an administrator at his own sale, either by himself or through an agent, is voidable at the instance of any person interested in the property. It is not essential to the application of this rule to a particular case that the administrator should be the purchaser of the entire interest in the property. A purchase by him at his own sale of any interest in the property renders the same voidable. The same reasons which...
To continue reading
Request your trial