Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN S. WYNNS v. RANKIN ALEXANDER ET AL.

The acts of 1723 and 1794, Rev. Stat., ch. 46, secs. 11 and 12, directing the mode of selling the personal property of descendants, is merely directory, and does not affect the power of sale vested in the executor by the common law. It should, however, always be followed, as in the absence of fraud it is a complete protection to the executor.

DANIEL, J., after stating the facts:

It appears to us that the title to the slave, which, at law, was in the executors, was bona fide, and for a full consideration transferred by the executors to the widow. The act of Assembly (Rev. Stat., 275) provides, when the estate of a person deceased shall be so far indebted that the debts cannot be discharged by the moneys on hand, or by the sale of the perishable commodities, then it is and shall be the duty of every executor or administrator to sell the goods and chattels at public advertisement, first obtaining an order of the court of the county for that purpose. The executor or administrator might before the passage of the act have sold bona fide the goods and chattels of the testator or intestate. The legal title was in him, and an honest purchaser from him would always have acquired a good title. The common law on this subject is not repealed by this act. The statute is only directory, which, however, it would be well always to follow, for if the executor or administrator fails to obtain as much at private sale as would have been got at public vendue, he or they would be bound to make good the deficiency out of their own pockets. Cannon v. Jenkins, 16 N.C. 427. We are of opinion, from a full examination of this case, that the plaintiff has no ground to entertain this bill, and that the same must be dismissed. Costs are not given to the defendants, because, the purchase not having been made in the mode directed by the act of Assembly, the defendants ought to bear a share in the expense of investigating the good faith of the transaction.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed without costs.

Cited: Dickson v. Crawley, 112 N.C. 632; Odell v. House, 144 N.C. 648. (60)

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WYNNS v. ALEXANDER
(Jun 1, 1838)