Bacharach v. Spriggs

Hart, C. J., (after stating the facts). The record shows that W. L. Scott died testate in the Stale of Colorado, owning property in the city of Helena, in Phillips County, Arkansas. By the terms of his will he directed that this property be sold to the best advantage and the net proceeds be divided equally between his wife,. Ruby Lee Scott, his daughter, Laura Walton, and his sister, Charlotte Tyler. No one was appointed by the terms of the will to make the sale, but the fifth clause of the will appointed his wife as executrix and authorized her to act without giving any bond. An executor derives his powers from the will, and, if it authorizes him to sell lands, he may do so without the order of any court. Ludlow v. Flournoy, 34 Ark. 451. In Heiseman v. Lowenstein, 113 Ark. 404, 169 S. W. 224, Am. Cas. 1916C, 601, it was held that no particular form of words is necessary to create a power to sell in the will, and that, if the executor is directed by will or bound by law to see to the application of the proceeds of the sale, then such power of sale is conferred on the executor by implication. In a case-note to 32 L. R. A. (N. S.), at page 679, it is said that an executor named in a ’will which either expressly or impliedly directs real estate to he sold, and the proceeds distributed in a certain manner, by necessary implication has power to sell and convey the real 'estate without express powers having been conferred. Numerous cases from numerous State courts of last resort are cited which support the text. To the same effect see 24 C. J., page 157, § 637 (b); and 11 R. C. L., page 398, § 480. In the application of this principle of law to the facts presented by the record, it may be stated that Ruby Lee Scott, as executrix of the last will of W. L. Scott, deceased, alone had the authority to sell the property in question and distribute the proceeds as directed by her testator in his will. But it is insisted that she qualified and was acting as executrix under the will in the State of Colorado, and could not sell property situated in the State of Arkansas. In Apperson v. Bolton, 29 Ark. 418, this court expressly held to the contrary, as will appear from the following quotation: “Wade H. Bolton, by his will, appointed Apperson his executor, and empowered him to sell his real estate in Tennessee or in other States. When the will was properly probated in Tennessee and letters granted to him, the will was his authority to sell land there, and not his letters; they were merely evidence of his authority to execute the power conferred upon him by the will, but he could not sell Arkansas land by the power conferred upon him by the will until the will was admitted to probate in this State under our laws, and, when so admitted to probate and recorded, it ivas not necessary for him to take out letters here in order to sell the Arkansas land.” Counsel for the plaintiffs contend that this case is not applicable because in that case no administrator with the will annexed was appointed and qualified under the laws of the State -of Arkansas, and that for this reason it was held that the executor in Tennessee had , the authority to convey the title. It is plainly apparent from the authorities above cited that such is not the case. The authority to sell, as we have already seen, arises hy necessary implication. In 11 R. C. L., page 405, § 490, it is said that an executor appointed in one State has no authority, as such, to make a sale of land in another State, but may do'so in virtue of a power given in the will, and in so doing he acts as donee of a power and not under an authority conferred by the probate court. Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587, 67 Am. Dec. 89, is cited to support the 'text. Hence it is apparent that, if the executrix named in the will had refused to carry out the power of sale conferred hy implication upon her hy the terms of the will, the administrator with the will annexed in the State of Arkansas could not have sold the land without an order of the probate court, and, as a necessary consequence, could not have made a binding executory contract for the sale of it. The record not only shows that the executrix under the will, appointed by its terms, did not refuse to execute the power to sell, but, on the contrary, did exercise it by selling her own interest and causing another of the devisees to sell her interest to the husband of the third devisee, who had agreed to the sale and who did not-wish her interest in the property sold. Under these circumstances the chancellor properly held that the complaint of the plaintiffs should be dismissed for want of equity. But it is insisted by counsel for the plaintiffs that the chancery court erred in granting relief to the defendants on their cross-complaint. This contention is based upon the fact that plaintiffs had asked for their complaint to be dismissed before a trial of the case. This was not done, however, until the plaintiffs had secured a deed to the property in controversy from Ed Spriggs, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of W. L. Scott, deceased. This deed cast a cloud upon the title of the defendants, and the court properly retained jurisdiction of the case in order to cancel this deed, if, under the facts established, it should be warranted in so doing. The court properly held that this deed was a cloud upon the defendants’ title, and should be canceled. It is true that Ruby Lee Scott and Charlotte Tyler conveyed their interest in the property to George Walton, the husband of Laura Walton, but they executed a warranty deed to him, and, for this reason, had a right to proceed with'the suit. This sale and conveyance was made pursuant to an agreement with Laura Walton, who wished to retain her interest in the property, and who did so in lieu of receiving one-third of the proceeds derived from the sale of it. Hence, in any event, she would have had a right to have the administrator’s deed from Spriggs to the plaintiffs set aside; and, if set aside at fier instance, it would inure to the benefit of her codefendants, and the plaintiffs, having failed in their suit, could not be prejudiced by this action of the court. Therefore the decree will be affirmed.