Colbert vs. Moore, administrator

Supreme Court of Georgia1880-02

64 Ga. 502

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that a purchaser at an administrator's judicial sale is bound by the bid despite defective or absent title in the intestate's estate, provided the administrator made no fraud or misrepresentation; the purchaser must investigate title independently.

An administrator of an intestate estate sold real property at a judicial sale, and the purchaser, Colbert, refused to pay the purchase price. Colbert argued that he should not be bound by his bid because the intestate had no title to convey. The trial court instructed the jury that a purchaser at an administrator's sale must examine the title for himself and is bound by his bid unless the administrator or his agents made false representations about the property that misled the purchaser. The jury found for the administrator, and Colbert moved for a new trial.

Colbert contended the court should have charged that he could reject the sale if the administrator could not make good title, and that the court should not have instructed that an administrator cannot warranty the property. The court rejected these arguments, finding that established state law and the Code require purchasers at judicial sales—including administrator's sales—to investigate title independently. An administrator cannot bind the estate by warranty, and a purchaser's only remedy is if the administrator or the auctioneer made actual false statements that deceived the buyer.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a buyer at an administrator's sale can reject a bid due to defective title absent fraud
Whether an administrator can warrant title to property being sold from an intestate estate
The duty of purchasers to investigate title in judicial sales

Procedural posture

Colbert, the unsuccessful defendant at trial, appealed by moving for a new trial on the grounds that the trial court misstated the law regarding title warranty and purchaser obligations at administrator's sales.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Crawford, Justice.

K. P. Smith, as the administrator of G. P. Culverhouse, filed a bill to marshal the assets of his intestate — was granted an interlocutory order directing the sale of the real estate of the deceased, at which sale John G. Colbert became the purchaser of certain lands so exposed to sale, and refusing to pay the purchase money, was sued therefor.

He pleaded the general issue, and further that the plain.tiff could show no title in the intestate, and that he was ready to pay if the administrator could makegood and valid title.

Under the charge of the court and the evidence submitted, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant being dissatisfied therewith, moved a new trial upon several grounds. Those which must control this case are:

1. That the court erred in refusing to charge as requested in writing, “ That if Smith sold the land, and Colbert after-wards found that Smith had no title and could make him none, then Colbert was not bound to comply with the bid, that is, if Colbert demanded a title of Smith.5’

2. Because the court erred in charging further, “ That an administrator cannot bind the estate he represents by any warranty; Smith, as the administrator, could not bind the estate of Culverhonse by warranting this property, even if he had attempted to do so. In all judicial sales the purchaser must look to the soundness of the title for himself. In sheriffs’, executors’ and administrators’ sales the purchaser is bound to look for himself, not only as to the soundness of the property, but as to the title, and to see if the party had the right to sell.”

3. Because the court erred in charging as follows : “ Did Smith make any false representations as to quantity, quality or title to the land ? did his crier make any, and was Colbert misled by them, acted on them ? then he is not bound. But if neither Smith nor his agent who cried the property, or if Colbert was not misled by them, he is bound by his bid and you should so find.”

The request to charge, which was refused, and the charges given, bring us directly to the question in this case, which is, whether a purchaser of property at administrator’s sale can repudiate his bid because of a defective title, or no title at all in the intestate, where there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the administrator. Section 2622 of the Code declares, “ The purchaser must look for himself as to the title and soundness of all property sold under judicial process. Actual fraud or misrepresentations by the officer or his agents may bind personally.” These principles were ruled in 8 Ga., 236 and 300; 11 Ib., 1; 18 Ib., 553, and incorporated into the Code therefrom, and are now the fixed and settled law of this state. "An administrator cannot bind the estate by any warranty in any conveyance or contract made by him, nor is he personally bound by such contract unless the personal liability is dis tinctly expressed.” Code, §2563. Recognizing therefore the principles given in the charge as being sound law, we affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.