Mr. Justice STRONG
delivered the opinion of the court.
The complainant insists that the Circuit Court erred in assuming that the sale which was made by Saunders in 1862 was a nullity, and that the property remaiued the complainant’s notwithstanding. This position is taken in order that it may be inferred the residue of complainant’s bond for the purchase-money was satisfied by a sale under the trust, and that Waller has not only been thus paid, but that he is accountable for the excess of his bid at that sale above the amount then due him by virtue of the bond. The position
is certainly a strange one. It is directly in' conflict with the law of the case and with the complainant’s bill. By the deed of trust it was stipulated that in case of a sale the trustee should give sixty days’ notice in newspapers in Richmond and in the city of New York. To a valid .execution of the power of sale such notice wad indispensable, and a sale without it of course conveyed no title. . It is not pretended that such notice was given. ’Oft the contrary, the bill charges that it was not, and to this the answer of "Waller makes no denial, while the answer of Saunders expressly admits that there was no .advertisement in a New York paper, giving as a reason for the failure thus to advertise that communication with the Northern States was then prohibited. Yhe fact that the sale was made without the requisite notice is then an established fact, and the’inevitable inference is that the sale was inoperative to. divest the ownership of the complainant. Without confirmation by him it was a mere nullity, disturbing no right and conferring noné. But if this were not so, the theory of the complainant’s bill is that his. title was not divested. It charges that the necessary notice-was not given. ’ It complains that possession was taken'by Waller after the sale; that he received the rente, issues, and profits, down to 1866, received compensation-for injuries done to the improvements by the Confederate military forces, and it asserts that ,Waller is accountable to the complainant for such possession, rents, and profits, as well as for the compensation he obtained. All this is utterly inconsistent with the assertion tha. the sale was effectual to change the tjtle. But this is not all. There is much more in the bill that, asserts ■ continued ownership of the complainant, and the invalidity of .the sale made'in 1862. The averment that the trustee is about to sell the lands again under the trust-deed, and the charge hat the sale will be conducted in such--a partial and unjust manner as to cheat and defraud the, complainant are full of meaning, tío is the prayer for an injunction against another sale, and the prayer for the delivery over of the deeds. . In view of all this it is impossible for the complainant to maintáin now that the attempted
foreclosure in 1862 was not a nullity, ineffective to transfer his right to Waller. Even if he could have affirmed the sale, he has precluded himself from doing so, and has left nothing for the court but to adjudicate upon the case as he has made it. There has then been no actual payment of the bond.
The next inquiry is whether Waller is chargeable with the rents, issues, and profits of the property from the 1st of April, 1862, when the sale was made, until the spring of 1865, when the complainant returned to the land and resumed actual possession. This, of course, assumes that the sale had no validity, for if it worked a foreclosure of the eomplainaut’s equity, if it vested the title in Waller, there-can be no pretence that he is liable for subsequently-accruing rents and profits. It is only while he can be considered as holding the possession in trust for the mortgagor that he can be called to account. Had he entered in pursuance of his purchase, claiming title in himself by virtue thereof, he would doubtless be chargeable as a trustee, though the purchase was wholly void; and it' may be conceded, if he had taken actual possession without, claim of right, that he might be treated as such. But actual occupation of the mortgaged premises is indispensable to the existence of such a liability. It is the enjoyment of the property, or the pernancy of its profits, that raises the trust. ■ A false claim of title is, of itself, insufficient.
The difficulty of the complainant’s case is, there is no proof that Waller was in actual possession, or even that he was on the land at all, from the time of the sale until this bill was filed, or that he ever received any of its rents, issues, or profits. There is a total failure of any such evidence. The most that can he alleged is, that he claimed sometimes to be the owner without ever enjoying any of the rights of ownership. It is proved that he had possession neither of the personalty nor of the realty.
Equally unsustained is the claim, that Waller is responsible for the waste committed upon the land, and the destruction of improvements. The property was greatly injured be
tween 1861 and 1865, during the existence of the civil war, but' the evidence wholly fails -to show that the injury was caused by any act of the defendant’s. It was done by the Confederate military forces in Waller’s absence, and, so far as it appears, without his knowledge.
It is further insisted, on behalf of the complainant, that the Circuit Court erred in refusing to allow him a credit for damages which, it is alleged, he sustained in consequence of a refusal by Waller to release portions of the land from the operation of the deed.of trust in order to enable him to sell them. This claim is founded upon the clause in an executory agreement between the parties, dated April 2d, 1853, by which it was stipulated that Waller would allow Bigler to sell such portions of the land as, from time to time, he might see fit, Bigler paying over such proceeds of the sales .as would afford ample security for the residue of the debt due for the'purchase-money of the land. The deed for the land from Waller to Bigler was, however, not made until the 10th of’May, 1853, and probably not delivered until the 22d of June next following, when the deed of trust was executed. Neither the deed nor the deed of trust contains any such stipulation for’releases as is contained in the agreement of April 2d, and it might perhaps be maintained that the agreement was subsequently changed, or merged in the after-executed contracts. But, assuming that it was not, what is the evidence of the breach of the agreement? It does appear that, in 1853 or 1854, the complainant had offers to purchase some parts of the land situated in the heart of it; .that he applied to Waller for releases, and that they were refused. But it does not clearly appear that those lots thus located could have been sold without so impairing the value of the-remainder as to leave it less than ample security for the payment of .the residue of .the debt. Applications were afterwards made for releases of other and larger portions differently situated, and the.releases were given. That those first asked were not given, when only one-sixth of the pürchase-money of the whole, property had been paid,.ought not to be regarded as a violation of the agreement without
very-clear evidence that Waller knew they could have been given with entire safety.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice STRONG
delivered the opinion of the court.
The complainant insists that the Circuit Court erred in assuming that the sale which was made by Saunders in 1862 was a nullity, and that the property remaiued the complainant’s notwithstanding. This position is taken in order that it may be inferred the residue of complainant’s bond for the purchase-money was satisfied by a sale under the trust, and that Waller has not only been thus paid, but that he is accountable for the excess of his bid at that sale above the amount then due him by virtue of the bond. The position
is certainly a strange one. It is directly in' conflict with the law of the case and with the complainant’s bill. By the deed of trust it was stipulated that in case of a sale the trustee should give sixty days’ notice in newspapers in Richmond and in the city of New York. To a valid .execution of the power of sale such notice wad indispensable, and a sale without it of course conveyed no title. . It is not pretended that such notice was given. ’Oft the contrary, the bill charges that it was not, and to this the answer of "Waller makes no denial, while the answer of Saunders expressly admits that there was no .advertisement in a New York paper, giving as a reason for the failure thus to advertise that communication with the Northern States was then prohibited. Yhe fact that the sale was made without the requisite notice is then an established fact, and the’inevitable inference is that the sale was inoperative to. divest the ownership of the complainant. Without confirmation by him it was a mere nullity, disturbing no right and conferring noné. But if this were not so, the theory of the complainant’s bill is that his. title was not divested. It charges that the necessary notice-was not given. ’ It complains that possession was taken'by Waller after the sale; that he received the rente, issues, and profits, down to 1866, received compensation-for injuries done to the improvements by the Confederate military forces, and it asserts that ,Waller is accountable to the complainant for such possession, rents, and profits, as well as for the compensation he obtained. All this is utterly inconsistent with the assertion tha. the sale was effectual to change the tjtle. But this is not all. There is much more in the bill that, asserts ■ continued ownership of the complainant, and the invalidity of .the sale made'in 1862. The averment that the trustee is about to sell the lands again under the trust-deed, and the charge hat the sale will be conducted in such--a partial and unjust manner as to cheat and defraud the, complainant are full of meaning, tío is the prayer for an injunction against another sale, and the prayer for the delivery over of the deeds. . In view of all this it is impossible for the complainant to maintáin now that the attempted
foreclosure in 1862 was not a nullity, ineffective to transfer his right to Waller. Even if he could have affirmed the sale, he has precluded himself from doing so, and has left nothing for the court but to adjudicate upon the case as he has made it. There has then been no actual payment of the bond.
The next inquiry is whether Waller is chargeable with the rents, issues, and profits of the property from the 1st of April, 1862, when the sale was made, until the spring of 1865, when the complainant returned to the land and resumed actual possession. This, of course, assumes that the sale had no validity, for if it worked a foreclosure of the eomplainaut’s equity, if it vested the title in Waller, there-can be no pretence that he is liable for subsequently-accruing rents and profits. It is only while he can be considered as holding the possession in trust for the mortgagor that he can be called to account. Had he entered in pursuance of his purchase, claiming title in himself by virtue thereof, he would doubtless be chargeable as a trustee, though the purchase was wholly void; and it' may be conceded, if he had taken actual possession without, claim of right, that he might be treated as such. But actual occupation of the mortgaged premises is indispensable to the existence of such a liability. It is the enjoyment of the property, or the pernancy of its profits, that raises the trust. ■ A false claim of title is, of itself, insufficient.
The difficulty of the complainant’s case is, there is no proof that Waller was in actual possession, or even that he was on the land at all, from the time of the sale until this bill was filed, or that he ever received any of its rents, issues, or profits. There is a total failure of any such evidence. The most that can he alleged is, that he claimed sometimes to be the owner without ever enjoying any of the rights of ownership. It is proved that he had possession neither of the personalty nor of the realty.
Equally unsustained is the claim, that Waller is responsible for the waste committed upon the land, and the destruction of improvements. The property was greatly injured be
tween 1861 and 1865, during the existence of the civil war, but' the evidence wholly fails -to show that the injury was caused by any act of the defendant’s. It was done by the Confederate military forces in Waller’s absence, and, so far as it appears, without his knowledge.
It is further insisted, on behalf of the complainant, that the Circuit Court erred in refusing to allow him a credit for damages which, it is alleged, he sustained in consequence of a refusal by Waller to release portions of the land from the operation of the deed.of trust in order to enable him to sell them. This claim is founded upon the clause in an executory agreement between the parties, dated April 2d, 1853, by which it was stipulated that Waller would allow Bigler to sell such portions of the land as, from time to time, he might see fit, Bigler paying over such proceeds of the sales .as would afford ample security for the residue of the debt due for the'purchase-money of the land. The deed for the land from Waller to Bigler was, however, not made until the 10th of’May, 1853, and probably not delivered until the 22d of June next following, when the deed of trust was executed. Neither the deed nor the deed of trust contains any such stipulation for’releases as is contained in the agreement of April 2d, and it might perhaps be maintained that the agreement was subsequently changed, or merged in the after-executed contracts. But, assuming that it was not, what is the evidence of the breach of the agreement? It does appear that, in 1853 or 1854, the complainant had offers to purchase some parts of the land situated in the heart of it; .that he applied to Waller for releases, and that they were refused. But it does not clearly appear that those lots thus located could have been sold without so impairing the value of the-remainder as to leave it less than ample security for the payment of .the residue of .the debt. Applications were afterwards made for releases of other and larger portions differently situated, and the.releases were given. That those first asked were not given, when only one-sixth of the pürchase-money of the whole, property had been paid,.ought not to be regarded as a violation of the agreement without
very-clear evidence that Waller knew they could have been given with entire safety. Besides, it does not distinctly appear that the complainant was injured by the.refusal, or that he ever claimed compensation for it Until this bill was filed: From year" to year, down to 1860, and including that year, he paid the annual instalments of the purchase-money called for by his contract without claiming any deduction — a course of conduct inconsistent with the existence of any just claim to compensation for a prior breach of his creditor’s engagement. There is, then, no sufficient reason for the allowance of a credit on his bond in consequence of Waller’s refusal to execute releases.
It is further objected to the decree of the Circuit Court that it does not direct a conveyance by the heirs of Waller to the complainant. His heirs were not called in, and they are no parties. No decree could, therefore, have been -made against them; nor was any necessary. If, by the conveyance of Saunders to Waller in 1862, and his subsequent death, the legal title was; cast upon Waller’s heirs, it was only a naked legal right, which' they may be compelled to surrender whenever the purposes of the trust shall be accomplished — when the debt secured by the deed of trust shall be paid. Besides, Saunders, the trustee, has also died, and a new trustee has been appointed clothed with all the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the 'trustee named in the deed.
It is, however,'easy to protect the complainant against any outstanding title in the heirs of Waller by staying the execution of any decree until those heirs shall have conveyed to Henry Coalter Cabell, the new trustee, all the interest, if any, conveyed to their father by the deed of Saunders to him, to be held by Cabell under and subjéct to the trust declared in the deed of trust to Saunders. Such an order the Circuit Court may properly make.
There remains to be considered but one other objection made to the decree. It is that the sum found by the account due to the administrator of Waller was-decreed to be paid in United States coin. In view- of the ruling of this court
in
Knox
v.
Lee
and
Parker
v.
Davis,
this was erroneous, and for this cause alone the decree must be reversed.
Decree reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to proceed to an amended decree
In accordance with the foregoing opinion.