Kadis v. . Weil

80 S.E. 229, 164 N.C. 84, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 12

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: December 10, 1913
• Status: Published

Opinion

BROWN, J.

-The plaintiff contends that he and his wife have a right to convey in fee simple, free from encumbrances, to the defendant, tbe land conveyed to tbe plaintiff'by tbe said Martha J. Hollowell and George E. Hood, trustee, and described in, tbe deed tendered to tbe defendant by tbe plaintiff.

We are of opinion tbat under tbe terms of tbe deed in trust above set out, tbe contention of tbe plaintiff is well founded. It is admitted tbat George E. Hood bas been duly and legally substituted as trustee in place of A? B. Obestnutt, deceased, ,in said deed in trust.

• By force of law, as well as by tbe express words of tbe deed, Hood is vested with all tbe powers conferred upon bis predecessor. Tbe language of tbe instrument is clear, and confers upon tbe trastee tbe powér to sell tbe property, or any part of it,, and execute a title in fee to tbe purchaser when- requested in writing by tbe said Martha J. Hollowell, tbe cestui que trust. This consent is manifested when she joined in tbe deed with tbe trustee.

, Tbe contention of tbe defendant tbat it was tbe duty of tbe plaintiff to see to tbe application of tbe proceeds derived from, tbe sale to him, and see tbat tbe same was reinvested in real estate by tbe trustee, cannot be sustained.

It was so held in England, but is not tbe law here - as to a tona -fide purchaser for value.

Hauser v. Shore, 40 N. C., 357; Whitted v. Nash, 66 N. C., 590; Grimes v. Taft, 98 N. C., 198; Hunt v. Bank, 17 N. C., 60; 39 Cyc., pp. 378 and 379; A. and E. (2d Ed.), vol. 28, pp. 1130 and 1131.

Affirmed