Potts v. Wright

• Decision Date: 02 January 1877
• Citation: 82 Pa. 498
• Parties: Potts <I>et al. versus</I> Wright <I>et ux.</I>
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 498

82 Pa. 498

Potts et al. versus Wright et ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 27, 1876.

January 2, 1877.

October 27th 1876.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., absent

Error to the District Court of Cambria county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 297.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John P. Linton, for plaintiffs in error.—Irregularities in the proceedings of the Orphans' Court will not defeat the title of a purchaser of a sale made by its order, and a decree confirming the same cannot be inquired into in this collateral proceeding: M'Pherson v. Cunliff, 11 S. & R. 431; Klingensmith v. Bean, 2 Watts 486; Painter v. Henderson, 7 Barr 48. It was error to instruct the jury that it was for them to determine whether there were such irregularities or fraud in making the sale as would avoid the same. Questions of law cannot be submitted to the jury: Commonwealth v. Henderson, 1 Penrose & Watts 401; Stouffer v. Latshaw, 2 Watts 165; Haines v. Stouffer, 10 Barr 363. It was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to what constituted fraud, and for them to ascertain whether from the evidence it existed. To set aside a proceeding in the Orphans' Court, twenty years after the sale in a collateral proceeding, on the ground of fraud, the evidence must be clear, precise and indubitable: Stine v. Sherk, 1 W. & S. 195. The sale was a judicial sale, and the purchaser took the same title as the decedent had. The regularity of the proceedings before the justices could not be determined by the jury, and should not have been submitted to them. It was error to leave to the jury to say whether there was legal or actual fraud on the part of the administrator and Potts in the purchase of the land.

D. McLaughlin, for defendants in error.—Decree of Orphans' Court may be impeached collaterally for fraud or want of jurisdiction: Merklein v. Trapnell et al., 10 Casey 46; Gilmore v. Rodgers et al., 5 Wright 127; Rorer on Judicial Sales 170-174. Parties acting in a fiduciary capacity cannot purchase at sales made by themselves or by their direction: Note to 4 Kent 438; Story on Agency 11, 12; Rorer on Judicial Sales 50; Fox v. Mackreth and Pitt v. Mackreth, Lead. Cas. Eq., Hare and Wallace's notes 125. The proceedings before the justices were invalid, as Mary Haws was not made a party: Tyler on Ejectment 529. The writ of possession was not fully executed: Id. 590; Herman on Executions 533. Plaintiffs were never put in actual possession of land: Id. 534. Continuous possession for twenty-one years and exercise of acts of ownership will alone defeat right of owner of land: Urket v. Coryell, 1 W. & S. 83. Legal owner need not continue all the time in possession: Tyler on Ejectment 100.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, January 2d 1877.

Both parties claimed under John Harshberger, who died testate in September 1850. The will was duly proved before the register in April 1851. The executor having renounced, an administrator with the will annexed was duly appointed. On his application the Orphans' Court ordered the sale of the land in question for the payment of debts. It was sold to the plaintiffs on the 5th of June 1854. The sale was confirmed by the court. The purchase-money was paid by the purchasers, and the deed was acknowledged and delivered by the administrator to them. One Isaac Haws, who was either married to a daughter of Harshberger or lived with her as her husband, went on the premises a short time before the death of Harshberger, and by his sufferance. He continued in possession. In July 1856 the plaintiffs as purchasers instituted proceedings against him before two justices of the peace to obtain possession, under the Act of 9th April 1849. The jury found all the facts required by the statute, and the justices adjudged the possession to the plaintiffs on the 18th July 1856. On the same day a writ of possession issued to the sheriff, who returned, on the 21st of July 1856, that he had given possession of the premises to the plaintiffs. The present action of ejectment was commenced on the 15th June 1874.

The numerous assignments of error involve the consideration of two questions; one the validity of the title acquired by the plaintiffs at the administrator's sale; the other the defendant's rights under the Statute of Limitations.

1. In the petition of the administrator asking for the sale, he averred under oath that the decedent had no personal property to appraise so far as he could find; and he gave a just and true account of all the debts of the decedent which had come to his knowledge. It is true the record does not show the filing of a bond as directed by the Act of Assembly; but the purchaser's title is not invalidated thereby: Lockhart v. John, 7 Barr 137. It was but an irregularity cured by the confirmation of the sale.

The Orphans' Court is a court of record. It has all the incidents and qualities of a court of record at common law. Its proceedings and decrees, in all matters within its jurisdiction, cannot be reversed or avoided collaterally in any other court: 2 Purd. Dig. 1103, pl. 4. Its judgments and decrees like those of any other court of record are final and conclusive. They cannot be questioned in a collateral suit unless for want of jurisdiction appearing on the record, or for fraud: Kennedy v. Wachsmuth, 12 S. & R. 171; The President of the Orphans' Court of Dauphin County v. Groff et al., 14 Id. 181; Lockhart v. John, supra; Merklein v. Trapnell et al., 10 Casey 42; Gilmore v. Rodgers et al., 5 Wright 120.

The petition shows debts of the decedent and no personal estate with which they could be paid. It was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute. The court accepted it as a full compliance. It gave to the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and authorized a sale for the payment of debts. The sale was ordered. It was made, and confirmed by the court. Jurisdiction is thus shown by the record, and all irregularities are cured. The purchase-money was paid and the deed delivered.

It is true some of the earlier cases, prior to the Act of 1834, held the title which a purchaser acquired at an Orphans' Court sale might be questioned in ejectment; yet the later cases hold it cannot be done except for fraud or want of jurisdiction: M'Pherson v. Cunliff et al., 11 S. & R. 422; Painter v. Henderson, 7 Barr 48. A sale under the order of an Orphans' Court is a judicial sale: Moore v. Schultz, 1 Harris 98; Vandever v. Baker, Id. 121. It may nevertheless be impeached for fraud; but the evidence of the fraud must be clear and explicit. It cannot be established by showing some irregularities, and then making a general allegation of fraud. The irregularities were cured, and distinct acts of fraud must be proved to affect the title of the purchaser. This is not an attempt...