Williams v. Harrington

• Decision Date: 31 December 1850
• Citation: 11 Ired. 616,33 N.C. 616,53 Am.Dec. 421
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: DOE ON DEMISE OF BENJAMIN C. WILLIAMS v. WILLIAM D. HARRINGTON.

11 Ired. 616

33 N.C. 616

53 Am.Dec. 421

DOE ON DEMISE OF BENJAMIN C. WILLIAMS

v.WILLIAM D. HARRINGTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1850.

A Court of Equity has a general jurisdiction to direct the sales of the estates of infants, wherever the pnrpose, for which the sale is directed, shall be deemed by the Court beneficial to the infants.

The decree in such a case cannot be impeached in any other case; neither upon the ground, that a guardian was not appointed by the proper Court, nor that there was not due advertisement or competent evidence of it, nor that the interest of the infant was not promoted by the sale, nor that, for any other reason, it was not a proper case for a sale, nor that the decree did not find the facts, which shewed the sale to be beneficial, nor upon any similar grounds.

Where a decree is made, on behalf of infants, for the sale of “the lands of the deceased debtor lying in Moore County,” and a sale is made of severral specified parcels of land, the sale ratified, and an order of the Court to convey to a particular purchaser, no exception can be taken to the general description of the land in the decree ordering the sale.

The Court has the power, with the consent of the reported purchaser, to substitute another person in his place; though, as a matter of wholesome practice, such a substitution ought not to be allowed, before the payment of the purchase money, nor, perhaps, without looking to the rights, even of third persons, as against the first purchaser.

Under an order of the Court of Equity for the sale of the real estate of infants, the deed of the commissioner appointed to make the sale, by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1827, transferred to the purchaser the legal title.

The cases of Harris v?? Richardson, 4 Dev. 279, Leary v?? Fletcher, 1 Ire. 259, and Jennings v?? Stratford, 1 Ire. 404, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Moore County, at the Fall Term 1850, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.

The premises descended from his father to the lessor of the plaintiff, while he was an infant, and the defendant claimed them under a deed to him from the Clerk and Master of the Court of Equity for Moore County. The whole question was on the validity of the defendant's title. The deed was made in 1833, and recites, that, at August term 1831, the Court by its decree commanded the Clerk and Master, after advertisement, to sell certain lands belonging to the estate of Benjamin W. Williams, deceased, and that, by virtue of that decree, after due advertisement according to the decree aforesaid, the Clerk and Master set up the following tracts of land for sale to the highest bidder on the 29th day of November 1831, in said County, when Charles Chalmers, John B. Kelly, and Daniel McNeil, became the highest bidders for William D. Harrington, at the price of $1890, and that the said Harrington had paid the same. In consideration of the premises, the deed then purports to convey to Harrington, the defendant, the premises in fee, describing them by metes and bounds. In support of the deed, evidence was given on the part of the defendant, that, after the year 1835, all the original papers and records of the Court of Equity for Moore were burnt by accident, including the proceedings on which the recited decree was founded. And evidence was further given by witnesses, that, in 1831, a petition was filed in the Court in the name of the lessor of the plaintiff by one Charles Chalmers, as his guardian, which set forth in substance, that Benjamin W. Williams, the father of the lessor, had died seised and possessed of a large real estate and also entitled to a large personal estate; that he died very much indebted, and all the personal estate had been applied towards the debts, and that several large debts remained unsatisfied, among which was a large debt to one Mr. Haskill, on which judgment had been obtained, and the plaintiffs were about to sue out process to subject the lands of the deceased debtor thereto: that if the lands should be sold for cash under execution, they would probably be sold at a great sacrifice, and that it would be for the interest of the infant heir, as well as beneficial to the creditors, that they should be sold on a reasonable credit under the decree of the Court of Equity: And the petition prayed that the Court would decree a sale of all the lands of the deceased debtor lying in Moore County, upon such terms and in such manner as to the Court might seem meet. Evidence was further given by witnesses, that testimony was offered to the Court, upon the petition, to show the necessity of the sale, and that the Court decreed the sale of the lands set forth in the petition as prayed for, and ordered the Clerk and Master to make the sale at auction on the premises, on certain terms therein specified, after advertising the same; but the witnesses stated, they were unable to recollect, whether the decree declared the facts upon which it was made. Evidence was further given by the Clerk and Master, that he duly advertised the sale in a newspaper printed in Fayetteville, according to the decree, and proceeded to sell the lands on the premises, when John B. Kelly became the highest bidder for the tract in controversy in this suit and was declared the purchaser and gave bonds for the purchase money: that he reported the sales to the Court of Equity, and the Court passed an order ratifying them, and directing the Clerk and Master to convey the lands to the purchasers upon the payment of the purchase money: and that afterwards Kelly paid the purchase money for this tract, and that under his direction and under an order also of the Court, he, the Clerk and Master, then made the deed to the defendant. The witness further stated, that all the proceedings were recorded. The counsel for the plaintiff objected to that part of the evidence respecting the advertisement in the newspaper, without producing the paper. But the Court overruled the objection.

On the part of the plaintiff it was insisted, that Charles Chalmers was not duly appointed guardian of his lessor; and, in order to establish that, he gave evidence that his mother died soon after he was born, and afterwards his father resided in Moore County until his death in 1828; and that the lessor of the plaintiff lived with his father up to his death, and was then seven years old; and immediately...