119 So. 659 | Ala. | 1928
The main question involved in this appeal is whether or not the order or decree of 1874 of the probate court of Choctaw county, Ala., reciting a sale of the land by the administrator, the report of the same, and the payment of the purchase money, and directing the administrator to make a deed to the purchaser, operated, in and of itself, in the absence of a deed, as color of title.
While, under the statute as it existed in 1874, the execution of a deed was essential to vest the legal title in the purchaser (Comer v. Hart,
The order or decree, under the statute as then existing, gave the purchaser the equitable title, and placed upon the administrator a legal obligation to make a deed. This court has held that a bond for title, which is a contractual obligation to convey, is color of title, so why not the solemn decree of a court of record which places a legal duty and obligation on the administrator to convey? Also that irregular condemnation proceedings, though not sufficient to pass the legal title, will operate as color of title. M. G. R. Co. v. Cogsbill,
The only case we find in point to the contrary is Livingston v. Perdergrast,
The case of N.C. St. L. R. Co. v. Mathis,
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.