Latta v. . Vickers

82 N.C. 501

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 5, 1880
• Status: Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

after stating the case. The case shows no equity in the plaintiff calling for the intervention of the court, and the disturbance of the successive orders and final judgment in the cause. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the established and regular practice, and the petitioner was represented by his next friend in association with others, whose interests were identical with his own. No imputation upon the integrity of the defendant’s conduct is made, no suggestion of unfair means used to influence the action of the court, and no reason, except the plaintiff’s minority, is now assigned for interference with the proceedings. When paid into office and the order of distribution entered, it is his misfortune that the guardian did not take out his share of the money, as did the others, and by investment or otherwise make it available. It belonged to the plaintiff and its loss must fall on him. If confidence is to be reposed in the action of the courts, within the sphere of their jurisdiction, and their judgments upheld, there is no basis upon which the plaintiff’s claim can be enforced. The land was sold when confederate money was the only currency, for its value, and payment tendered when the currency was less depreciated than at the time of sale. The sale was reported and confirmed, the purchase money paid, title ordered to be made, and made. It is true some of the decretal orders do not accord in time with what seems to have been done under them, but if not erroneously dated, they must be.understood as intended to be, and have the effect of a recognition and ratification of an authority previously exercised and known.

But a formal direction to make title is not necessary when the order of sale, as in this case, reserves the title as an additional security for the purchase money, and the purchase money has been paid. “ Whenever a court orders a sale,” says Rodman, J., “ on a certain credit, as twelve months in this case, and a sale is so made, and the bond of the purchaser is taken payable at the end of the credit given, and the sale is confirmed, the master is authorized by a necessary implication to receive the money when it falls due. * * * An order that the master make a deed to the purchaser is not necessary after the payment of the purchase money, and a deed without such order passes the title.” Brown v. Coble, 76 N. C., 391.

The cases cited for the plaintiff when a payment in confederate money was only allowed its scaled value, or rejected, were cases arising upon notes given before the war, or the terms of the order were not complied with; or as in Wetherell v. Gorman, 73 N. C., 380, the sale for confederate money was made in April, 1865, when by the collapse of the confederate government its currency perished.

It must therefore be declared there is no error, and the judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.