51 Ga. App. 480 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1935
Lead Opinion
This wás an action against the sheriff by the purchaser of certain land at a sale under an execution, who sought to recover the amount paid by him for the land. A verdict was directed for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the exception is to that judgment. The sole question for determination is: Can a purchaser of land at a sheriff’s sale under an execution, where the sheriff has paid over to the plaintiff in execution the consideration paid by the purchaser, and where the levy has been declared excessive by a court of competent jurisdiction and the sale set aside and the sheriff’s deed canceled, the purchaser being a party to the action to set aside the sale and cancel the deed, maintain an action against the sheriff for the amount of money paid by him to the sheriff for the purchase-price of the land ?
In order for a sheriff to make a valid sale of land under an execution there must be a legal levy of the execution thereon. A levy which is grossly excessive is illegal and void, and a sale in pursuance thereof may be set aside and the sheriff’s deed canceled. Doane v. Chittenden, 25 Ga. 103; Wallace v. Trustees of Atlanta Medical College, 52 Ga. 164; Morris v. Davis, 75 Ga. 169; Brinson v. Lassiter, 81 Ga. 40, 42 (6 S. E. 468); Williamson v. White, 101 Ga. 276 (28 S. E. 846, 65 Am. St. R. 302), and cit. Roser v. Georgia Loan & Trust Co., 118 Ga. 181 (44 S. E. 994), and cit.; Stark v. Cummings, 127 Ga. 107 (56 S. E. 130), s. c. 119 Ga. 35 (45 S. E. 722), and cit. As above stated, it has been adjudicated in this case that the levy was excessive, and the sale was set aside and the sheriff’s deed canceled. The purchaser at the sale was a party to these proceedings.
“The purchaser shall look for himself as to the title and soundness of all property sold under judicial process. Actual fraud or misrepresentation by the officer or his agent may bind him personally. No covenant of warranty shall bind him individually, unless made with that intention and for a valuable consideration.” Code of 1910, § 6054, Code of 1933, § 39-1307. No question of fraud or misrepresentation or of warranty is involved in this case. “The purchaser at judicial sale shall not be bound to look to the appropriation of the proceeds of the sale, nor to the returns made
The doctrine of caveat emptor relative to judicial sales was followed or recognized in Conley v. Redwine, 109 Ga. 640, 645 (35 S. E. 92, 77 Am. St. R. 398); Parr & Wood Furniture Co. v. Bar
Ordinarily the bona fide purchaser at a sheriffs sale under á valid execution takes just what title the defendant in execution has, no more and no less; but, as stated, a judicial sale which is declared void passes no title to the purchaser. Walters v. Taylor, 19 Ga. App. 822 (92 S. E. 352); Rogers v. Smith, 146 Ga. 373 (91 S. E. 414); 23 C. J. 746, § 789. So the doctrine of caveat emptor is applicable where the purchaser at a sheriffs sale gets a defective
In Forbes v. Hall, 102 Ga. 47 (28 S. E. 915, 66 Am. St. R. 152), it was held that the sale under the execution was void on account of an excessive levy, and that such a.levy is no authority to sell, and therefore it is immaterial who the purchaser is, he gets no title. Conley v. Redwine, supra. In Morris v. Davis, 75 Ga. 169, 174, there was a grossly excessive levy and the sale was declared void. The Supreme Court said that while an innocent purchaser for value is protected from irregularities, yet where the levy is excessive, the sale is illegal, and no title passes to the purchaser, that the purchaser at all judicial sales depends upon the judgment, the levy, and the deed, and that the purchaser must see to these and guard himself against illegality. In Methvin v. Bexley, supra, a bill in equity, brought against the sheriff, the defendant in execution, and the plaintiff in execution, by a purchaser at the sheriff’s sale who had paid the sheriff the purchase-price and could not get possession, because the defendant in execution had no title, was dismissed on the ground .that the doctrine of caveat emptor applied, and there were no allegations in the bill as to any fraud.
In the present case the proceeds received by the sheriff from the purchaser at the sale had been paid over to the plaintiff in execution in extinguishment of the debt of the defendant in execution. Corpus Juris lays down the rule that “In case of failure of title, or where the sale is set aside on account of irregularities in the proceedings which render it void, a bona fide purchaser is entitled to recover the purchase-price from the officer, if the funds are still in his hands.” 23 C. J. 779, § 834. One of the cases cited to sustain this rule is Hightower v. Handlin, 27 Ark. 20. Also there are cases where the purchaser may be subrogated and recover from the debtor the amount which his debt has been decreased. 23 C. J. 779, § 835. And it has been held in other jurisdictions that if a sale is void for the reason that it is founded on a void judgment, one who purchased at the sale without knowledge of such invalidity
It is true that a purchaser at a judicial sale who has paid money upon the faith of proceedings regular upon their face occupies the status of a purchaser in good faith. Stevens Hardware Co. v. Bank, 34 Ga. App. 268 (129 S. E. 172). In some cases, such as where there has been fraud and misrepresentation, hidden or secret equities and claims, an innocent purchaser at a sheriff’s sale is to some extent protected. Thompson v. Selcer, 142 Ga. 809, 811 (83 S. E. 965); Edenfield v. Rountree, 33 Ga. App. 444 (126 S. E. 731). In some instances he is subxogated to the rights of the execution creditor against the execution debtor. See Askew v. Patterson, 53 Ga. 212; Hamilton v. Rogers, 126 Ga. 27 (54 S. E. 926); Ashley v. Cook, 109 Ga. 659 (35 S. E. 89); Rogers v. Smith, supra. However, in Carithers v. Venable, 52 Ga. 389, dealing with a sale based upon a judgment against a defendant in attachment, it was said: “If there was no notice the judgment was void, and the sale void. The purchaser took nothing. A purchaser is protected against an irregular judgment, but not a void judgment.” In Southern Cotton Mills v. Ragan, 138 Ga. 504 (75 S. E. 611), it was held that in judicial sales, where the maxim of caveat emptor applies, “The purchaser must look for himself as to the title and soundness of the property sold. . . Such sales are by the court, and there is no one to go back on if the buyer takes nothing.” It was held in McWhorter v. Beavers, 8 Ga. 300, that the purchaser at a sale under execution can not maintain an action against the defendant in execution for so much money paid to his use on fail
The ruling made in this case, that an action at law can not be maintained by the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale which has been declared void because of a grossly excessive levy, against the sheriff who conducted the sale, the purchase-money having been paid over by him to the plaintiff in execution, is in accord with the doctrine Of caveat emptor as applied in this State.
It follows that the question for determination in this case is properly answered in the negative, and therefore the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff purchaser in this case against the sheriff for the purchase-money paid at the sale, and the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially. The authorities have been
Whatever might be the distinction recognized by some authorities between “judicial sales” and “sales under execution,” the rule in this State seems well established that the doctrine of caveat emptor applies with equal force to each. Our dissenting brother in terms recognizes that the doctrine of caveat emptor applies to a purchaser at a sheriffs sale. Accordingly, whatever the rule of caveat emptor must be taken to mean under the statutes and decisions of Georgia, the doctrine, if otherwise applicable, must be given effect in this case. The Code sections cited by the writer of the majority opinion (Code of 1933, §§ 39-1307, 39-1311) seem controlling. In the absence of “actual fraud or misrepresentation” by the sheriff (§ 39-1307), the purchaser is bound “to see that the officer has competent authority to sell” (§ 39-1311), or, as was said in Solomon v. Peters, 37 Ga. 251 (supra), it devolves upon him to look to “the title of the defendant in execution, and the authority of the officer to sell.” If an attempted judicial sale is void, the ruling in Corley v. Jarrell, 36 Ga. App. 225 (136 S. E. 177), goes only to the effect that the doctrine of caveat emptor can not be applied to coerce payment of the purchase-price, if it remains unpaid. In such a case the law leaves the parties where it finds them. The contention in this case, however, arises, not in an effort to require the purchaser at a void judicial sale to consummate such a nullity by paying over the purchase-money, but in an effort to make the sheriff personally reimburse the purchaser in the amount paid, where the fund has been turned over to the plaintiff in fi. fa., and where, although the sale was void on account of the levy being excessive, there is no contention that the officer was guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. Does the doctrine of caveat emptor apply in a case of this sort ? It being the duty of the purchaser to look for himself in order to see that the officer has “com
Our dissenting brother does not think that a case like this makes the doctrine applicable. He thinks that perhaps the doctrine of estoppel might preclude a recovery where the purchaser is shown to have had equal knowledge with the sheriff as to the defect. Our Code, however, under the title of caveat emptor and in dealing with that subject expressly relieves the officer of personal liability, except where he is guilty of actual fraud or misrepresentation. The purchaser is warned by the law to look for himself at the officer’s competent authority to sell. In the language of the Solomon ease, he is to look both to “the title of the defendant in execution, and the authority of the officer to sell.” Such being the duty imposed, he in law knows as much about the levy as the sheriff does, and in this sense the doctrine of caveat emptor as related to the non-liability of the sheriff might be said to be grounded upon the doctrine of estoppel. See Forbes v. Hall, 102 Ga. 47, 48, 49 (supra). But to get back to the case of Shaw v. Walker, supra, which furnished the occasion of this special concurrence, was that decision correct? In my opinion it was. In view of the statement by Judge Stephens that a present examination of the record in that case discloses that the purchase-price had been paid to the sheriff and by him in turn to the plaintiff in fi. fa., it would not
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. Notwithstanding the doctrine of caveat emptor applies to a purchaser at a sheriff’s sale (Code of 1933, § 39-1307), it does not apply where the sale is void and the purchaser, by reason of the invalidity of the sale, upon the ground of a void levy, or otherwise, acquires no title. In Corley v. Jarrell, 36 Ga. App. 225 (136 S. E. 177), it was held that where a sheriff’s sale was void by reason of an invalid levy, the purchaser was not liable upon his bid. The court there expressly stated that “the levy and sale being void, the doctrine of caveat emptor is inapplicable.” See also 23 0. J. 655, § 623. Under the doctrine of caveat emptor the buyer is bound to take notice of the amount and nature of the interest which he is about to buy and can not hold the seller to a warranty of title or quality. See Broom’s Legal Maxims (9th ed.), 501; Borer on Judicial and Execution Sales (2d ed.), 77; 11 C. J. 43, 44. Where there is no sale, there can be no application of the doctrine of caveat emptor. As I see it, there is nothing contrary to this in any of the authorities cited in either of the opinions of my colleagues, including Code of 1933, §§ 39-1307, 39-1311, Wheaton v. Sexton, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 503 (4 L. ed. 626),
Freeman, in his work on Void Execution, Judicial, and Probate Sales (3d ed.), in sections 48 and 49, has this to say: “The distinction between void sales and defective titles must be kept in view, to avoid any misapprehension of the rights of one who has purchased at an execution or judicial sale, without, in fact, obtaining anything. If he obtains nothing because of a defect in the proceedings, he can defeat an action for the amount of his bid. If, on,the other hand, the proceedings are perfect, but the defendant, or ward, or decedent, had no title to be sold nor conveyed, the purchaser is nevertheless bound by his bid, if he has permitted an
Section 39-1307 of the Code of 1933 is but an application of the doctrine of caveat emptor to execution sales such as sales by a sheriff. It does not extend the application of the doctrine to void sales made under judicial process, but simply applies the doctrine to the sales referred to and places the burden upon the purchaser to look for himself as to the title and the soundness of the property. It does make the levying officer liable for actual fraud. This might be the case where the levy is void. In any event this section does not expressly limit the levying officer’s liability.
The provision contained in section 39-1311 of the Code of 1933 that “an innocent purchaser [at a judicial sale] is bound only to see that the officer has competent.authority to sell, and that he is apparently proceeding to sell under the prescribed forms,” means, as I construe it, that all that is essential to pass title to an innocent purchaser is that the officer has competent authority to sell and is apparently proceeding to sell under the prescribed forms. Where these conditions appear, the innocent purchaser obtains whatever title may be existent in the defendant in execution. This provision does not mean that a purchaser who acquired no title because of a lack of authority in the levying officer to sell the property and the sale was therefore void, and who had for this reason lost the property after he had paid the purchase-money therefor to the levying officer, is, upon an application of the doctrine of caveat emptor, bound for the purchase-money and that after having paid the money
There is a distinction between a judicial sale and a sale under execution. A judicial sale is one made by the court and under its authority, while an execution sale, such as a sale by a sheriff, is one made by an officer under process and in accordance with the requirements of law. In many cases a distinction is made between the application of the doctrine of caveat emptor to judicial sales and to sales under execution. It is not always applied to judicial sales. See 35 C. J. 75, 76; 23 C. J. 615; Rorer on Judicial and Execution Sales (2d ed.), 69, 70; Freeman on Yoid Execution, Judicial and Probate Sales (3d ed.), § 49.
In Shaw v. Walker, 25 Ga. App. 632 (2) (104 S. E. 23), it was held that where a sheriff’s sale was made upon a levy of a dormant fi. fa., the sale was a nullity and the purchaser acquired no title to the property sold and could therefore recover from the sheriff the purchase-money which had been paid him. It did not appear there that the sheriff had not paid the money to the plaintiff in fi. fa., but the record indicates that the money had been so paid. This case seems to be controlling. In Hightower v. Handlin, 27 Ark. 20, it was held that “where the judgment of a court, or an execution issued thereon, is declared void, by competent authority, the purchaser, under such sale, takes nothing, but would have recourse upon the sheriff, who made the sale, for the money paid at it.” Tt
An excessive levy is absolutely void, and a sale thereunder passes no title to the property sold. Such sale is not merely voidable, but is void. Its invalidity can be established collaterally. Roser v. Georgia Loan & Trust Co., 118 Ga. 181 (44 S. E. 994); McKenzie v. Pound, 121 Ga. 708 (49 S. E. 689).
I therefore can not concur in the judgment of reversal where it is based upon the ground that, upon the application of the doctrine of caveat emptcrr, a purchaser at a void sheriff’s sale, where he has lost the property by reason of the invalidity of the sale, can not recover of the sheriff the amount of the purchase-money paid, notwithstanding the sheriff may have paid the money over to the plaintiff in fi. fa.