Sackett v. Twining

• Decision Date: 29 March 1852
• Parties: Sackett <I>versus</I> Twining.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 199

18 Pa. 199

Sackett versus Twining.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 29, 1852.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bucks county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

The case was argued by Chapman and Roberts, for plaintiff in error.—The defendant having omitted to avail himself of the opportunity of having the quantity of the land ascertained until after the deed had been executed and bond given, he was guilty of such negligence as precludes him from obtaining relief: 1 Story's Eq. 146, 151.

A sale by an administrator, under an order of the Orphans' Court, is a judicial sale, and it is not competent to the purchaser to object to the payment of the purchase-money on account of defect of title. The rule of caveat emptor is applicable to it: 3 Watts 490, Bashore v. Whisler; 3 W. & Ser. 444, Fox v. Mensch; 4 Barr 171, King v. Gunnison; 1 Harris 121, Vandever v. Baker.

An article of agreement for the sale of land is merged in the deed, and the purchaser cannot resist the payment of the purchase-money on the ground of deficiency in the quantity of the land after deed executed and bond given for the purchase-money: 13 Ser. & R. 160; 1 W. & Ser. 442; 2 Pa. Rep. 533; 10 Barr 490.

Du Bois, for defendant in error.—In case of a mistake as to the quantity of land, where it is sold by the acre, equity will relieve the party affected: 7 W. & Ser. 201; 1 Harris 637, Beck v. Uhrich; 13 Ser. & R. 160.

A distinction exists where the land is sold by the acre and in gross: 6 Bin. 102; 1 W. & Ser. 444. Reference was made to 3 W. & Ser. 390, Roland v. Miller; 5 Id. 51; 3 Wh. 316.

As to the mistake, reference was made to 2 Barr 105, Hunt v. Moore.

The opinion of the Court was delivered, March 29, by COULTER, J.

The sale in this case was made by order of the Orphans' Court, the heirs and legal representatives declining to take the land at the appraisement. It was therefore a judicial sale, made by order of a Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and over the administrator who made the sale.

The sale was by virtue of a decree of the Court, after hearing all parts interested, and was approved and confirmed by them, at which time, that is, after the return of sale by the administrator and before confirmation, the purchaser, the heirs, and the administrator had a right to be heard. We cannot overturn or impugn the decree of the Orphans' Court confirming the sale in this collateral proceeding. It was a judicial sale; as an individual, the administrator had no authority whatever to make the sale. But as an officer of the Court for that purpose, and to execute their decree, he had;...