Patton v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 31 December 1855 |
| Citation | 2 Jones 285,55 N.C. 285 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH PATTON v. ROBERT THOMPSON. |
Where a trustee buys at his own sale, even though he may give a fair price, the cestui que trust has his election to treat the sale as a nullity, not because there is, but because there may be fraud. Therefore:
A guardian who petitions for the sale of his ward's estate, gets an order of sale, acts as the agent of the clerk and master in making it, cries the sale, takes the bonds, and gives the information to the clerk and master, on which the report is made and the sale confirmed, will not be allowed to hold the land of his ward, purchased by another for him at such a sale.
The bill was filed to compel the defendant to bring in a deed for cancellation, and for an account of the rents, &c.
Joseph Patton was a lunatic, to whom the defendant was guardian; he had a few articles of personal property of small value, and a tract of land containing sixty acres, worth between five hundred and a thousand dollars, and no other means of subsistence. In 1848, the guardian filed a petition in the Court of Equity of Orange, (then having jurisdiction), stating that the proceeds of the land and other property were insufficient to support the ward, and that it was necessary to sell the land; whereupon, that Court made a decree that the sale should be made, and appointed the clerk and master of that Court to make it, on a credit of six and twelve months. The master advertised the land, and sold the same to one John Stewart, for $499, the defendant acting as his agent in crying the sale at auction, and in taking the bonds. Upon the coming in of the master's report, opposition to the confirmation of the sale was made, and it was continued for one term. Afterwards, it was confirmed, and in the mean time the new county of Alamance having been laid off, and having taken jurisdiction of the matter, the sale was, in that Court, ordered to be confirmed. At the Spring Term, 1850, of the Court of Equity of Alamance, an order was made “that the master transfer to Robert Thompson, the guardian, the bonds for which the land was sold, to be applied by the said guardian to the use of his ward; and that the master of this Court make title to the purchaser.” The bonds were accordingly delivered to the defendant; and in June, 1850, the clerk and master of that Court made a deed for the premises, to the purchaser, John Stewart. On the 20th September following, Stewart conveyed the same land to the defendant, for the consideration of $666, as expressed in the deed. No money was paid by Stewart on obtaining the deed, nor did defendant advance any thing to Stewart for his bargain; but the consideration on which Stewart conveyed to defendant, was a surrender of his (Stewart's) bonds by the defendant. The clerk and master delivered the deed for the purchaser, to the defendant, at the same time that he delivered him the bonds under the order of the Court.
The plaintiff alleged in his bill, that this sale of the ward's land was unnecessary; that divers of his friends had proffered to take the lunatic and land, and support him off of it; that defendant acted as agent to sell the land, and that in appointing a day of sale, he selected one on which there was a large gathering in the neighborhood, and most of the persons who might compete for the land were gone there. He alleges that the defendant did not advertise; that he did not state the full number of acres in the tract; and that he spoke doubtingly of the title; that he acted as crier of the sale; that he had procured Stewart to bid off the land for him; and when it came to the bid at which he knocked it off, he did so hurriedly, and in a way to prevent further competition. It was further alleged, that the land was worth from $1000 to $1200. The bill charges that the land adjoined the lands of the defendant, and was very much desired by him, and that in all this proceeding he was actuated by the fraudulent design of getting the land at an undervalue, and that he finally succeeded in doing so. The prayer is for a surrender of the land, and an account; also that the deed be surrendered for cancellation, and for general relief.
The defendant denies, in his answer, all these allegations, except that he told Stewart, and he says he told others, to bid, and that if they did not like their purchase, he would take it off their hands. He says that he did this solely from an anxiety to make the land bring its value. He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Floyd
...greatly less than its real value, this would be evidence for consideration by the jury in passing on the issue of fraud. In Patton v. Thompson, 55 N.C. 285, it is aptly "Who but the guardian can be relied on to show the property to persons wishing to buy, and to take the steps necessary to ......
-
Peedin v. Oliver
... ... Froneberger v. Lewis, 70 N.C. 456, and Id., 79 N.C ... 426; Brothers v. Brothers, 42 N.C. 150; Patton ... v. Thompson, 55 N.C. 285; Bruner v. Threadgill, ... 88 N.C. 361; Burnett v. Supply Co., 180 N.C. 117, ... 104 S.E. 137; Council v. Land Bank, ... ...
-
Smith v. Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank
...in her second cause of action. Froneberger v. Lewis, 70 N.C. 456 and Id., 79 N.C. 426; Brothers v. Brothers, 42 N.C. 150, 152; Patton v. Thompson, 55 N.C. 285; Bruner Threadgill, 88 N.C. 361; Burnett v. Supply Co., 180 N.C. 117, 104 S.E. 137. In the first remedy plaintiff disaffirms the sal......
-
Davis v. Jenkins
...to treat the sale as a nullity, not because there is fraud, but there may be fraud.' This statement of the rule was repeated in Patton v. Thompson, 55 N.C. 285. In Froneberger v. Lewis, 79 N.C. 426, the Court states the resume of the decided cases on this point as follows: 'a trustee can no......