Sumner v. Sessoms

• Decision Date: 28 February 1886
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: J. B. SUMNER and WIFE v. W. J. SESSOMS et als.

94 N.C. 371

J. B. SUMNER and WIFE

v.W. J. SESSOMS et als.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1886.

CIVIL ACTION, tried before Avery, Judge, and a jury, at January Special Term, 1884, of the Superior Court of BERTIE county.

Reddin Jones died intestate many years since, seized and possessed of a large tract of land in Bertie county, which descended in equal parts to his daughters, Fannie, wife of Calvin Godwin, Lavinia, wife of Henry D. Godwin, and his son Andrew J. Jones.

The lands were subsequently divided among the co-tenants, under proceedings instituted for that purpose in the County Court, and their respective shares allotted in severalty to each. In the partition, lot number 1, which is described in the complaint, and is claimed in the action by the feme plaintiff, was assigned to the said Andrew J. Jones, her father, whose estate therein, at his death in 1863, descended to her, his only heir-at-law. The plaintiff Bettie J., during her minority, intermarried with the other plaintiff, J. B. Sumner.

In December, 1870, Calvin Godwin, to whom letters of administration de bonis non on the estate of the intestate Reddin Jones, had been granted, filed his petition against said Fannie, Lavinia, Bettie J., Lawrence Askew, administrator of A. J. Jones, Lavinia his surviving wife, and Celia Jones, widow of the intestate Reddin, praying for license to sell his lands for assets, in order to pay a large outstanding indebtedness, found to exist against the estate. The Clerk thereupon made an entry in these terms:

“Henry D. Godwin is appointed guardian ad litem to the infant defendants.” The license and order of sale were granted, and to be made “for cash or on six months credit, as the petitioner might deem best for the estate.”

The sale was made and reported, and thereupon a decree was entered as follows:

“In this case, it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, that the land prayed for sale by Calvin Godwin, administrator de bonis non of Reddin Jones, was duly advertised according to law, and was sold in the town of Windsor, at public sale, on the 10th day of January, 1871; said land brought a fair price, and all parties acquiesced in the sale, and said land was bid off by Henry D. Godwin, for Celia Jones, widow of Reddin Jones, and is set down to her, the said Celia Jones, at the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars:

It is therefore, ordered and adjudged, that Calvin Godwin administrator de bonis non of Reddin Jones, be authorized to make and convey title to said land, by executing and delivering a deed of conveyance therefor to the said Celia Jones, the real and bona fide purchaser.”

Besides the recitals in the decree, the report on which it is founded, contained a statement that the land was sold subject to the widow's dower--that the purchase money had been paid to the administrator, and that he had executed a deed for the premises to her.

This deed bears date February 25th, 1871, and on the 2nd day of April, thereafter, the said Celia conveyed the land to said Calvin Godwin, for the alleged consideration of seven hundred and fifty dollars.

No complaint is made of the proceeding instituted to convert the land into assets for the payment of debts, by the other heirs-at-law of the intestate Reddin, and the present action is brought to recover the land assigned to the feme plaintiff's ancestor, in the partition among the co-tenants, upon an allegation that the proceeding, as to him and her, is void, and did not divest the estate therein, and the relief demanded is the recovery of possession, and an adjudication of the invalidity of the deeds from the administrator to the purchaser, and from her to him.

This summary recital of the facts in evidence upon the trial of the contested issue as to title, is sufficient for an understanding of the pertinency and force of the exceptions brought up for examination by the plaintiffs' appeal.

Mr. R. B. Peebles, for the plaintiffs .

Mr. W. D. Pruden, for the defendants .

SMITH, C. J., (after stating the facts).

1 Exception. The plaintiffs proposed to show that the land was worth much more than the sum for which it sold at the administrator's sale, with the view of impeaching the deeds referred to, and setting them aside.

This objection was made, on the ground that the parties to those deeds were not before the Court, and also because their validity could not be collaterally assailed, as proposed in this action. The objection was sustained, and the testimony for such purpose refused.

We concur in this ruling, and for the reason last assigned for the exclusion of the evidence. So long as the decretal orders of sale and conveyance remain unmodified, the conveyance authorized must also stand, unless impeached themselves in some direct proceeding, imputing collusion or fraud.

The insufficiency of price would have furnished cause for refusing to confirm the reported sale, but not after an adjudication that the “ land brought a fair price, and all parties acquiesced in the sale,” for setting the sale aside, and annulling the deed therefor in an action to establish a legal title, as if they did not exist.

Nor was it competent, in connection with the fact that Celia Jones, the reputed purchaser, a little more than a month afterwards, made a conveyance of the land to the administrator, Calvin, at a small reduction in price. If the nullity of the purchase could be proved in this collateral proceeding, the evidence would have been competent to...