Opinion
June Term, 1836.
1. The purchaser of chattels under an executed contract can claim redress against his vendor for a defect of title only where there is an express or implied warranty, or a deceit. And, ordinarily, the affirmation of title by the vendor, at the time of the sale, is equivalent to a warranty; but not where the vendor is out of possession, and there is an adverse claim to the chattel, made known at the time to the vendee; and especially where the vendor, notwithstanding his affirmation of title, says expressly that he sells only such as he may have.
2. Where a bill is filed upon a claim against two defendants jointly, and one suffers the bill to be taken pro confesso, and the other sets up a defense, which defeats the claim altogether, the bill must be dismissed as to both, though without cost to him who made default.
THE BILL was filed against several defendants, only two of whom answered, and it was taken pro confesso as against the others, who were nonresidents. The case made by the pleadings and proofs was, (319) that a certain negro was supposed to belong to the estate of Solomon Lee, after whose death an order was obtained by his administrator for the sale of the negroes of the deceased for the purposes of distribution. At the time of the sale the negro in question was actually held and claimed by Baillie Sutton and Thomas Lee as their property, and the sale thereof was forbidden by them, and the administrator suspended the sale. Some of the next of kin who were present insisted that the sale should proceed, for that the title of the intestate was clearly good. The negro was thereupon offered for sale again, the administrator declaring repeatedly that he sold only "the right of the heirs of Solomon Lee." The plaintiff became the purchaser, at the sum of $300, at a credit of six months, which was from 25 to 40 per cent less than the full value of the negro. The plaintiff asked if he ought not to have a bill of sale, but, on being told by a bystander that the sale itself was a sufficient transfer, without waiting for or receiving a delivery of the slave, gave his bond to the defendants, the next of kin, for the purchase money. The plaintiff contrived to get possession of the slave afterwards, but it was reacquired immediately by Baillie Sutton and Thomas Lee. The plaintiff thereupon brought suit against them, but failed, because Solomon Lee's title was defective. The prayer of the bill was for an injunction against execution on a judgment which had been obtained upon the bond, and for general relief.
Badger for plaintiff.
No counsel for defendants.
Upon the hearing at Bladen, on the Spring Circuit of 1835, before his Honor, Judge Seawell, the plaintiff obtained a decree; and the defendants, John Smith and wife, who alone had answered, appealed.
The purchaser of chattels under an executed contract can claim redress against his vendor for a defect of title, only where the vendor has undertaken to assure the title, or has deceived the (320) purchaser, in relation to it. In this case the plaintiff does not impute any fraud to the defendants. His title to redress must be founded, then, upon their warranty, either express or implied. We do not think that a warranty can be implied from the circumstances of the case, or is established by the proofs. Upon these the case is as follows. (Here his Honor stated the facts of the case, as above, and proceeded.)
The only fact tending to establish a warranty of the title is the assertion by some of the defendants that the title was good. There is, indeed, one witness who states in his deposition that "he heard James Lee say that the right was good, or he would make it good." It may be that the witness means to represent that James Lee declared that the title was good, and, further, that if it proved otherwise, he would make it good. But we feel ourselves bound to understand him as representing that he used one or the other of the phrases — either that the title was good, or that he would make the title good — and that the witness is not confident which of these was the phrase employed. We adopt this construction of the deposition, for several reasons — first, the plaintiff, in his bill, does not charge any engagement to make the title good, but only that some of the heirs gave assurances that it was good; secondly, all the other witnesses who speak of James Lee's declarations represent him as simply affirming the goodness of the title; and, finally, the testimony of the plaintiff's witness should not be strained against the defendants.
We assent to the argument which insists that this assertion of James Lee's is to be regarded as the assertion of the other defendants present at the sale and not dissenting therefrom; and we admit also that an affirmation of title by the vendor at the time of sale is ordinarily equivalent to a warranty of title. But in this case we are clearly satisfied that it amounted to no more, and was understood by the plaintiff to amount to no more than a confident expression of honest belief.
The adverse possession and claim put the purchaser upon his guard, and called for some explicit stipulation as to title, if any were required. Instead of such a stipulation, he was left to decide between conflicting assertions, and expressly apprised that no more was (321) offered for sale than the right of Solomon Lee's next of kin. The price shows that the purchase was a speculation; and the giving of a note for the purchase money, without delivery of the property, or covenants from the vendors as to title, leaves scarcely room to doubt but that he bought at his own hazard.
Upon the pleadings and proofs the Court is therefore satisfied that the decree below is erroneous. But no defense has been made to the bill, except by the defendants, Smith and wife. As against the other defendants, who are nonresidents, the bill has been taken pro confesso. This state of things presents a question which, as far as we are informed, has never been decided in the courts of this State. Where a claim is against two jointly, and one suffers the bill to be taken pro confesso, and the other sets up a defense, which defeats the claim altogether, what disposition of the cause is to be made as against him who makes no resistance? We believe that from analogy to the doctrine which prevails at law in similar cases, from the probable mischiefs that would result from an extension of the rigorous rule against nonresident defendants, and because of the obvious equity of such a course, we are bound to hold that the defense must inure to the benefit of all the defendants having a joint interest in the subject-matter.
The decree below is to be reversed, with costs to the appellants in this Court. The bill of the plaintiff must be dismissed, and the defendants Smith and wife recover their costs in the court below. No costs are given to the other defendants there because they made default.
PER CURIAM. Decree reversed and bill dismissed.
Cited: Attorney-General v. Carver, 34 N.C. 235; Roberts v. Welch, 43 N.C. 294; Sparks v. Messick, 65 N.C. 442.
(322)