Grimes v. . Taft

Davis, J. Whether the charge on the land allotted in the partition to Alonzo was a judgment or simply a statutory lien; whether the execution was irregular and void; whether it could be issued at all, and if so, without notice to the heirs; whether there was a presumption of payment and satisfaction; the effect of the release executed by Elizabeth Taft to R. T. Wilson and Julia Wilson; whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defendant, R. T. Wilson, administrator of Alonzo Boyd; whether the funds belonging to the estate of Alonzo Boyd, a portion of which was paid to Elizabeth Taft can be followed, and other points presented and argued at length in this Court, are in the view which we take of this case, not material or necessary to its determination. The partition was made in 1865, the execution was issued in 1885, and in the intermediate time Alonzo Body had died intestate and without issue, and the land allotted to him, except the portion previously sold to Wilson, descended to his heirs-at-law, one of whom was the defendant Elizabeth, subject however to the payment of his debts, if the personal property should not be sufficient for that purpose. In 1879, the defendant, R. T. Wilson, administrator of Alonzo Boyd, under a judgment of the Superior Court of Pitt county, rendered in special proceedings instituted against the heirs-at-law of his intestate, to make real estate assets to pay debts, sold the said land, when the plantiflf became the *197 purchaser, paid the purchase money, and the land was conveyed to her under the decree of the Court. It it not denied that the sum charged upon the share allotted to Alonzo to make the division equal in the partition of the lands of John Boyd, was a specific lien upon the land so charged, and if not paid, the land descended to the heirs of the said Alonzo, subject to this specific lien. The proceedings under which the land was sold are not set out in full, but it is to be assumed that they were regular, and the judgment and sale in accordance with the requirements of the statute. At all events, the defendant Elizabeth was a party thereto, and cannot be heard to say that they were not. It was necessary, among other things, that the petition should*set forth the amount of the outstanding debts, and “ a description of all the legal and equitable real estate of the defendant, with the estimated value of the respective portions or lots.” It is insisted by the defendant, that the plaintiff purchased with notice of the lien upon the land created by the report and judgment confirming the same, made in the proceeding for partition ; that being of record she was conclusively fixed with notice, and purchased subject to the incumbrance, and must now discharge it, or else it may be discharged by a sale of the land, and for this latter purpose the execution was issued. So far from this being the correct view, when the petition for a sale of the land to make assets to pay debts was filed by the administrator against herself and others, heirs-at-law, &c., the defendant was obliged to know what debt, if any, was due to her from the deceased; whether the “ legal and equitable real estate” of the decedent was truly described; whether she had any claim or lien upon the land sought to be sold; and if so, she was further obliged to take notice of the law which prescribes the order in whith the administrator was required to pay debts, and which made it his duty first of all to pay “debts which by law” had a specific lien *198 upon the property of his intestate, and as against the plaintiff, she is concluded by the sale, she cannot be heard to say that the title of the purchaser was not good. Purchasers in good faith at judicial sales are protected, says MekrimoN, Judge, in England v. Garner, 90 N. C., 199, “ against the errors and irregularities of the Court, and the laches of parties which they cannot see, and of which they have no opportunity to inform themselves,” and for this he cites many authorities. Purchasers at judicial sales are not required to do more than to see that the Court has jurisdiction, and that the judgment authorizes the sale. Fowler v. Poor, 93 N. C., 466; Edney v. Edney, 80 N. C., 81; Shields v. Allen, 77 N. C., 375. As against the parties to the proceeding under which the plaintiff purchased, she acquired a perfect title to the whole of the land; there was nothing to indicate that less than the whole estate was sold, and they are estopped. It was the duty of the administrator to pay the debts of his intestate in their respective order, and the purchaser was not required to see that the purchase money was properly applied by him, and if the defendant failed to get what was due to her, it was, as against the purchaser, her own fault. Hunt v. Bank, 2 Dev. Eq., 60; Whitted v. Nash, 66 N. C., 590. By the purchase and deed made in pursuance of the judgment of the Court, the plaintiff acquired a title to the land discharged of the lien, and is entitled to the relief demanded. It appears that after paying the debts of his intestate, there remained a considerable surplus from the proceeds of the sale of the land, of which $615.27 were paid to the defendant as one of the distributees and heirs-at-law of Alonzo Boyd. It does not appear from the case agreed, what disposition was made of the remainder, and the judgment of the Court below is affirmed, saving and reserving to the defendant all rights, if she shall be advised that she has • any, against R. T. Wilson, administrator of Alonzo Boyd, or against her co-heirs and distributees of the said Alonzo. No error. Affirmed.