Olcott v. Bynum

Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. The object and prayer of the bill in this case are to redeem certain premises therein described, consisting of upwards of 14,000 acres of land, sold by the defendants Bynum’ and Grier to the defendant Sloan, under a mortgage containing a power of sale. The mortgage was executed by the defendant Hovey, and'bears date the 1st day of January, 1859. Bynum and Grier, as trustees for the High Shoals Manufacturing Company7, were the mortgagees. The mortgage recites that Hovey had executed to Bynum and Grier a penal bond in the sum of $80,000 to secure the paymient of $40,000 in three instalments of $13,838.83 each, the first payable on the 1st day of January, 1860, the seeoud o‘ix. the 1st of July7, 1860, and the third on the 1st of January, 1861, all with interest from the 1st of January, 1859. It Avas conditioned that, in default of payment of either of the instalments or the interest thereon, or of any part of either when due, it should be lawful for the mortgagees to sell at public auction all the mortgaged premises, and to make and deliver to the purchaser a deed in fee simple, and out of the moneys arising from the sale to retain the amount of the principal and interest Avhich should then be due on the bond, together Avitli the costs and charges of advertising and selling, rendering the overplus, if any, to the mortgagor, his heirs, or assigns; “Avhich sale so to be made,” it was provided, “ shall forever’ be a perpetual bar, both in law and equity,’against the mortgagor, his heirs and assigns, and all other persons claiming or to claim'the premises, or any part thereof, by, from, or under him, them, or either of them.” *57 Default having been made in the payment of the first instalment, due January 1st, 1860, the mortgagees advertised the premises to be sold on the ensuing 28th of April, and then sold them for the sum of $43,500 to Sloan, to be held by him in trust for the High Shoals Manufacturing Company, the cestui que trust of the mortgagees. At the time of the sale and conveyance to Hovey a down payment was made consisting of $6157 in cash, and a receipt to Bynum by Ebeu S. Stephenson for certain dividends to which Stephenson was entitled, which, added to the cash, made an aggregate of $7853.33. The bond and mortgage ■were given to secure the residue of the purchase-money. The bill charges that this payment was made by Olcott and Stephenson jointly; that Hovey was a man of no means, and that he bought and took the title as the agent of the complainant and Stephenson, wholly in trust for them, and that on -the 8th day of January, 1860, eight days after the title was conveyed to him, he conveyed to them all his interest in the property, and that on the 18th day of December, 1867, Stephenson conveyed all his interest to the complainant. These allegations, so far as they relate to the" agency of Hovey, are clearly proved by the testimony of Hovey himself and of the complainant, and there is nothing in the record which tends in any degree to contradict them. Sufficient evidence was produced in the court below of the execution of the deed from Stephenson to the complainant. The evidence offered as to the deed from Hovey to th'e complainaut and Stephenson consisted of proof of theToss of the original and a certified copy from the proper register’s office in North Carolina of a copy which had been registered there. It was held by the court below that this evidence was incompetent to establish the existence of the lost deed, and that the complainant had therefore failed to show any connection with the property in question. Upon the ground of this objection-the bill was dismissed. , "Whether this ruling was correct is an inquiry which meets us at the threshold of our examination of the ease. It is *58 one to be determined by the lex loci rei slice. It is to be considered solely in the light of the statutes and adjudications of North Carolina. This court must hold and administer the law upon the subject as if it were sitting as a local court of that State. In the revised code of 1854 we find the following language. It is a re-enactment of the provision of the act of 1715 on the same subject: “No conveyance for land shall be good and available in law unless the same shall be acknowledged by the grantor, or proved on oath by one or more witnesses in the manner hereinafter directed, and registered in thq county where the laud shall be, within two years after the date of said deed, and all deeds so executed and registered shall be valid and pass estates-in land without livery of seizin, attornment, or other ceremony whatever.”* * Sections three, four, and five of chapter 87, and section two of chapter 21, provide for the execution in other States of deeds for lands in North Carolina and their registration in the proper county; but we have found no provision authorizing the registration of a copy. In Patton and Erwin’s Lessee v. Reily, † in the Supreme Court of Tennessee, an original unregistered deed was offered in evidence. It was objected to upon the ground of the want of registration. . The court said: “ Registration was intended to stand in the place of livery of seizin. ' By the common law no estate could pass without livery of seizin, and the same may be said of its substitute.’ Lands as conveyed by this deed, would not pass the estate at common law, and if it will pass,, it must be by act of assembly. The act of 1715 requires the deed to be registered before a legal estate is vested in the grantee. To create a title under this act of assembly, the party claiming the benefit of it'must have complied with its requisitions. One of them is that the deed shall be registered. This deed cannot be read in evidence.” The plaintiffs were nonsuited. Patton and Erwin’s Lessee v. Brown ‡ is to the same effect.' Such is the settled law of North Carolina upon the subject. § *59 The original deed from Hovey to Olcott and Stephenson never having been registered, and the registration of the copy being unauthorized, it follows that the certified copy of the registered copy was a nullity, and could give no legal right to the grantees which the Circuit Court could recognize. We hold, therefore, that the ruling upon this subject was correct. Obviously, a proceeding in equity had specially for that purpose, and bringing the proper parties before c.ourt, is the appropriate remedy for the complainant to establish the lost deed and give it efficacy, and in no other way can this be done. * It has been insisted, in behalf of the complainant, that there was a resulting trust in favor of the complainánt and Stephenson, arising from the circumstances of the transaction at the time of the conveyance to Hovey. Where the purchase-money-is all paid by one, and the property is conveyed to another, there is a resulting trust in favor of the party paying, uuless there be something which takes the case out of the operation of the general rule. But where he furnishes only a part of the amount paid no trust arises unless his part is some definite portion of the whole, and is paid for some aliquot part of the property, as a fourth, a third, or a moiety. † There must be no uncertainty as to the proportion of the property to which the trust extends. ‡ Here the amount paid was $7853.33, and it was paid without reference to any specific part of the property. Hence the principle in question does not apply. But if it did, it could do so only to the extent of the actual payment. It could certainly have no application in respect to the $40,000, for which Hovey gave his obligation, and for which Olcott and Stephenson assumed.no liability to the grantors of the estate. Such a trust must arise, if at all, at the time the purchase is made. The funds must then be advanced and invested. It cannot be created by after-advances or funds subsequently furnished. It does not arise upon subsequent *60 payments under a contract by another to purchase. * A trust to the extent of the payment made, if it existed, would not support the case made in the bill. The complainant claims to have owned the entire estate. But the bill sets out clearl}' and fully a case of express Crust, and if the seventh section of the Statute of Frauds applied, the trust would be sufficiently “ manifested and proved ” by the deposition of Ilovey, to give it efleet. † But there is no such statutory provision in North Carolina, and the case stands in this aspect as it would at the common law, before the enactment of the 29th Car. II, c. 3. ‡ This brings us to the examination of the merits of the case. The objections taken by the complainant to the sale to Sloan may be thus stated and grouped together: That the entire property was sold wholly for cash when only a part of the debt was due; that Bynum and Grier bought in the property for themselves; that it was a case of trustees buying for themselves; And that the sale was made in gross disregard of the interests of the complainant in the following particulars: Only enough of the property should .have been sold to pay the instalment then due; If the whole were sold it should have been for cash, only to the extent of the amount due, and with credits maturing respectively, so as to meet the instalments of the debt, under-due, at their maturity'; The place of sale was improper. The business was conducted by the defendant Bynum. He appears tvell in the record. No imputation of bad faith has been cast upon him, and no ground for any is disclosed. He conducted himself with integrity and frankness, and mingled kindness with the administration of his trust, as far as his duty to his principals would permit. The first instal *61 ment matured on the 1st of January, 1860. He waited until February trying to get payment without a sale. Meeting with no success, and seeing no prospect of such a result, he advertised the property to-be sold in March. Olcott and Stephenson, by their letter of the 25th of February, asked delay until the 1st of May, hoping to be able in the meantime to raise the funds necessary to discharge the amount due. Bynum’s absence on the 1st of May being necessary, he gave them until the 28th of April. With this they were content, and asked no further indulgence. Failing to realize their expectations, the property was exposed to sale upon the premises on the appointed day. Bynum procured several capitalists to attend, but none of them would bid more than $85,000, deeming that to be as much as the property was worth. A meeting of the stockholders of the High Shoals Company had been held, and decided not to allow the property to be sold for less than the amount of the debt due on the bond of Hovey, and appointed and instructed Sloan to bid accordingly. He did so bid, and the sale was made to -him, as before stated. A deed was not executed until the 12th of June, 1868. It was operative by relation from the time of the sale. But the deed is an immaterial fact. If the sale were valid, it is conclusive without the deed. If it were invalid, the deed cannot help it. It cannot be doubted that Olcott and Stephenson, when their letter of the 25th of February, 1860, was written, knew the property was to be sold as they had bought it, en masse, and making no objection, they-are concluded upon that point. * The complainant visited North Carolina in the spring of 1861. While there he made no objection to the sale, either to Sloan or Bynum. On the contrary, in conversation with both, he expressly acquiesced and admitted its fairness and validity. He proposed to Sloan to join him in a new purchase of the property. He applied to Bynum for license for a year to himself and Muir, to enable them to search for mines. Bynum gave him one running from April to November, but *62 subject to be revoked at any time upon the sale of the premises. It does not appear that the complainant set up any claim touching the property after the sale, until about the time of the filing of this bill, on the 22d of April, 1868. These are significant and important facts in the case. * The place of sale, like the time of advertising, is not prescribed in the mortgage. Both are left to the discretion of the mortgagees. There is no complaint as to the iatter. We are satisfied there was no abuse as to the former. The testimony leaves. no doubt in our minds that the .property would not have brought more if offered elsewhere. Express authority is given to sell all the property upon the failure to pay either of the instalments at maturity. If enough of it to satisfy the amount due could be segregated and sold without, injury to the residue, it would have been the duty of the mortgagees so to sell. The evidence convinces us "that the sale of a parcel could not have been made without such injury. It was bought by Groot from the High Shoals Manufacturing Company entire. It was sold entire to Hovey under the mortgage of Groot. It was so sold to'Sloau under the mortgage of Hovey. Subsequently it was so sold to Bridgers and others, and it was so sold by them to Commodore Wilkes. This shows the views upon the subject of , those most conversant with the property and most interested in disposing of it to the best advantage. It has upon it water-power, timber, ores, mills, and furnaces; each part is necessary to every other. Dismemberment, instead of increasing, would have lessened the aggregate value. It could not have been sold in parcels without a sacrifice. If a mortgage provide that upon default in the payment when due of a part of the amount secured the. whole shall become due and may be collected, such a stipulation is valid and may be enforced. † So where a bond contains such a stipulation it may be enforced accordingly in an action at law. ‡ But the bond in this case as recited in the mortgage contained no such stipu *63 lation. On the contrary the mortgage, while it authorized a sale of the entire property in the event of any default, expressly provided that if there should be a sale, the - amount “ then due,” with costs and charges, should be retained, and the overplus, if any, paid over “ unto the party of 'the first part, his heirs, administrators, or-assigns'.” Such a clause has not the effect to make the entire debt due and collectible upon the first default. * But the propérty being incapable of division without injury, and having all been properly sold together, yielded a fund sufficient to pay the whole debt, as well the instalments underdue as the one overdue. ' Under these circumstances it was proper at once to pay the former as well as the latter, stop the interest, and-extinguish the entire liability. The lieu of the mortgage continued Upon the fund as it subsisted upon the premises before they were Sold. † If a court of chancery had administered the fuud it would have so applied it. Such is the settled rule in equity. ‡ Here the mortgagees, having applied the fund as a court of equity would have applied it in conformity to this principle, there is no ground for complaint on the part of Olcott. Where there is a power and discretion, such as existed in this case, touching the sale, a court of equity will interpose only on the ground of bad faith. § The bid of Sloan was a liberal one. The property could, doubtless, have been bought in for much less. That bid. rand the cancellation of the entire debt were in consistency with the fair dealing which characterized the conduct of the mortgagees in all their transactions with the other parties. There is no foundation for the imputation that.Bynum and Grier were themselves the purchasers. They had no authority to give -credit for any part of the purchase-money. It was their duty to sell wholly for cash. They were au *64 thorized to sell, without the intervention of a court of equity. * The property when sold under the mortgage of Hovey was hastening to decay. When he bought, it rented for $5000 per year. When Sloan bought, its condition was such that it could be rented for only $500. When this bill was filed nearly eight years had elapsed since the sale was made to Sloan. Making allowance for the difficulty of intercourse between the North and the South during the war, there was acquiescence, express and implied, for three years after the war ceased. This, if not conclusive, weighs heavily against the complainant. We see no reason to disturb the decree. This conclusion has rendered it unnecessary to consider so much 'of the record as relates to R. R. Bridgers and his associates and their vendee, Commodore Wilkes. We have given no thought to that part of the case. Decree affirmed. Justices MILLER, FIELD, and STRONG were absent. Footnotes [*] Demarest and Wife v. Wynkoop, 3 Johnson’s Chancery, 134. [*] Chapter 37., § 1. [†] 1 Cook, 125. [‡] Ib. 126. [§] Hogan v. Strayhorn, 65 North Carolina, 279; Ivey v. Granberry, 66 Id. 223; Hodges v. Hodges, 2 Devereux & Battle’s Equity, 72. [*] Hodges v. Hodges, supra. [†] White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 241; Sayre v. Townsend, 15 Wendell, 650. [‡] Baker v. Vining, 30 Maine, 127. [*] Buck v. Swazey & Darling, 35 Maine, 51; Conner v. Lewis, 4 Shepley, 274. [†] Brown on the Statute of Frauds, 94; Tiffany on Trusts and Trustees, 191; Pinney v. Fellows, 15 Vermont, 525; Seaman v. Cook, 14 Illinois, 503. [‡] Foy v. Foy, 2 Haywood, 131. [*] Lamb v. Goodwin, 10 Iredell, 320. [*] Veazie v. Williams, 3 Story, 621. [†] Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 509. [‡] James v. Thomas, 5 Barnewall & Adolphus, 40. [*] Holden v. Gilbert, 7 Paige, 208. [†] Astor v. Miller, 2 Paige, 78; Sweet v. jacocks, 6 Id. 355. [‡] Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland’s Chancery, 179; Peyton v. Ayres, 2 Maryland Chancery, 67; King v. Longworth, 7 Ohio Rep., pt. 2, 232; Campbell v. MaComb, 4 Johnson’s Chancery, 534. [§] Bunner v. Storm, 1 Sandford’s Chancery, 860; Champlin v. Champlin, 3 Edwards’s Chancery, 577.