Nott v. C.T. Sampson Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1886 |
| Citation | 142 Mass. 479,8 N.E. 406 |
| Parties | NOTT v. C.T. SAMPSON MANUF'G CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H.L. Dawes, M. Wilcox, and J. Dewey, for the tenant.
Upon the facts, the demandant is not entitled to recover. If all the conditions of section 18 of chapter 142 of the Public Statutes attended the sale of the ward's land, then it cannot be avoided. The sale was by license of court, in good faith, for a full price, and for the best interests of the ward. The proceeds were accounted for in the probate court and we safely invested in government bonds. Thus, the proceeds were actually brought within the jurisdiction of the probate court, and became a part and parcel of the ward's property, and were under the security provided by law to-wit, the guardian's bond. A recovery of the land by her in this action would be a fraud on those holding honestly and for value, and she should be estopped to assert such a claim. Brown v. Dunham, 11 Gray, 42; Fay v Taylor, 11 Metc. 529; Bisp.Eq. §§ 280-282. See 2 Smith, Lead.Cas. (last Ed.) pt. 2, last half of page 893, and page 894; Smith v. Warden, 19 Pa.St. 424; Wilson v. Bigger, 7 Watts & S. 111-127; section 23, c. 142, Pub.St.; McKee v. Hann, 9 Dana, 526; S.C. 1 U.S. Eq.Dig. 588, case 133; Bassett v. Parsons, 140 Mass. 169; S.C. 3 N.E. 547; Bigelow, Estop. (3d.Ed.) 562, par. 15; Butler v. Hildreth, 5 Metc. 49; Morris v. Rexford, 18 N.Y. 552-557; Rodermund v. Clark, 46 N.Y. 354; Delay v. Vinal, 1 Metc. 57, and especially bottom of page 65, and over; Brooks v. Brooks, 11 Cush. 18; Bush v. Moore, 133 Mass. 199, last paragraph; McLane v. Curran, Id. 531; New Bedford Inst. for Savings v. Fairhaven Bank, 9 Allen, 175; Yeackel v. Litchfield, 13 Allen, 417; Robbins v. Bates, 4 Cush. 104; Blood v. Hayman, 13 Metc. 231.
Hill & Wainwright and D.W. Bond, for demandant.
The ruling of the court is correct, that the notice of the guardian's sale of November 21, 1863, was defective and insufficient in law, and that that sale, and the conveyance from the guardian, did not pass her title to the demanded premises. Gen.St. c. 102, § 28; Pub.St. c. 140, § 17; Gen.St. c. 102, § 15; Pub.St. c. 134, § 12; Hodges v. Brett, 4 G. Greene, 345. The custom of making all business appointments at a certain hour of the day makes it important that an hour should be fixed for a sale of property to which people are invited. It could not be expected that people would care to attend a sale which might require them to attend during the whole 24 hours of a day. Thomas v. Le Baron, 8 Metc. 355; Harding v. Larned, 4 Allen, 426; Alexander v. Pitts, 7 Cush. 503; Macy v. Raymond, 9 Pick. 284. There has been no ratification of this sale by the plaintiff. She could not ratify a sale until she became of age. She has not ratified the sale by accepting the proceeds of it. To constitute a ratification of the sale, there must have been some act of approval by the plaintiff, with a knowledge of all the facts. She had no actual knowledge of the facts till informed by her counsel in July or August, 1885. Bassett v. Parsons, 140 Mass. 169; S.C. 3 N.E. 547. The ruling of the court below is correct, that the demandant is not estopped from contesting the validity of the sale and conveyance, or from maintaining this action against the tenant. Pub.St. c. 173, § 12 et seq.
This is a writ of entry, to recover one-eighth of two-ninths of a parcel of land in North Adams, which descended to the demandant as one of the heirs of Samuel H. Gaylord. The demandant was born May 15, 1861. On November 21, 1863, her father and guardian sold the demanded premises in pursuance of a license from the probate court, and the tenant is a subsequent grantee of the premises thus conveyed. The demandant seeks to recover on the ground that the notice of the guardian's sale was bad, especially in not setting forth sufficiently the time and place of the sale; the words were, "On Saturday, November 21, 1863, at North Adams, Mass., Berkshire." The tenant alleges that the notice was sufficient, but more particularly relies on an equitable defense, based on the facts that the sale was conducted fairly and in good faith; that it took place at the same time the other interests were sold; that the land brought its full value; that expensive improvements have been made upon the land by the original and subsequent purchasers, without knowledge of any defect in their title or claim on the part of the demandant; that the guardian charged himself with the proceeds of the sale in his account, and was charged by the court, although an appeal was taken from the decree of the probate court by one of the sureties on the guardian's bond; and that suits were brought on the guardian's bond by a subsequently appointed guardian, which were prosecuted by the demandant after she became of age, on May 15, 1882. "She knew, in substance, what they were doing, and trying to do," although neither she nor her counsel had their attention called to the question of the validity of the sale until May 7, 1885, and she did not personally know that the funds received by her father were the proceeds of that sale until July of the same year. The court ruled that the notice was insufficient, that the guardian's sale did not pass the ward's title, and that the demandant was not estopped from contesting the validity of that sale, or from maintaining this action against the tenant. The court found for the demandant, and the report reserves the question whether the rulings and findings were correct.
We understand the report to be intended to raise the question whether the facts disclose any equitable defense, and not simply whether they show such an equitable defense as in strictness is to be stated in terms of estoppel. We gather this construction from the reservation as to the finding, as well as from the last ruling. If the sale was void by reason of defects in the notice, a case is presented for a confirmation of the sale, under Pub.St. c. 142, § 22, if that statute applies to sales made before its passage; for it appears that the defects in the notice did the demandant no harm; that the sale was made in good faith; was advantageous to the demandant; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial