Delaney v. . Clark

Stacy, 0. J. The title to the land in question was before the Court in Welch v. Gibson, 193 N. C., 684, 138 S. E., 25, where it was held that Garnett Jones Welch took a life estate in the property, under her mother’s will, with contingent remainders to her children, living at her death. The special proceeding appears to be regular, with all parties before the court, but appellant questions the power of the court to order a sale under C. S., 1744, without a jury finding that such would be to the best interest of all concerned, where the parties themselves do not agree to a sale. We have held in a number of cases that the court has full power to order a sale for reinvestment under C. S., 1744, where the facts, as here, bring the case within the purview of the statute. McLean v. Caldwell, 178 N. C., 424, 100 S. E., 888; Dawson v. Wood, 177 N. C., 158, 98 S. E., 459; Pendleton v. Williams, 175 N. C., 248, 95 S. E., 500; Thompson v. Rospigliosi, 162 N. C., 145, 77 S. E., 113. See, also, R. R. v. Parker, 105 N. C., 246, 11 S. E., 328. A private sale upon terms, when approved by the court, was sanctioned in Dawson’s case, where it appeared that such was to the best interest of all concerned. The court was warranted in following a similar course in the special proceeding now under consideration. McLean v. Caldwell, supra. Nor is the purchaser ordinarily chargeable with the duty of looking after the proper disposition of the purchase money. When he has paid his bid into court, or to the parties authorized by the court’s decree to receive it, he is ordinarily “quit of further obligation concerning it.” McLean v. Caldwell, supra; Dawson v. Wood, supra; Pendleton v. Williams, supra. In the special proceeding, presently under review, as was said in Dawson’s case, proper safety of the fund can be taken care of in the final decree. On the record, the judgment of the- Superior Court is correct and will be upheld. Affirmed.