TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Dickinson

JAMES D. PARKER, Commissioner, MARTI BASS, Administratrix of W. H. BASS, Deceased, v. L. J. R. DICKINSON

Parker v. Dickinson, 145 S.E. 231 (N.C. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 31, 1928
Judges
Beogden
Citations
145 S.E. 231196 N.C. 2421928 N.C. LEXIS 330

Opinion of the Court — Beogden

Beogden, J.

Does confirmation of a sale or of an actual partition take effect upon the date of confirmation or at the date of the sale ?

Until, a judicial sale has been confirmed the purchaser is a mere preferred proposer. Confirmation is an act of consent and approval which the court gives to the sale, and, for all practical purposes the.court is the vendor.in such cases, and within the limitations prescribed by law, may give or withhold its consent in its discretion.

Harrell v. Blythe, 140 N. C., 415 , 53 S. E., 232 . However, when the transaction is completed by confirmation, and thereupon title is conveyed to the purchaser, confirmation relates back to the day of the sale and the purchaser receives his title as of that time.

Farmer v. Daniel, 82 N. C., 152 ;

McArtan v. McLaughlin, 88 N. C., 391 ;

Vass v. Arrington, 89 N. C., 10 ;

Joyner v. Futrell, 136 N. C., 301 , 48 S. E., 649 .

Incidentally, it was contended that a, sale of all the tracts of land described in the petition was not necessary to pay debts. In-proper cases this contention would perhaps be worthy of serious consideration, but in the case at bar all the parties requested that all the land described in the petition be sold. Hence a discussion of the question would be wholly academic.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11945: 11952: 11955: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holt v. May68 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. 1952)
  2. Wood v. Fauth35 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1945)
  3. Vance v. Vance166 S.E. 901 (N.C. 1932)
  4. Wilkes-Barre v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau4 Pa. D. & C.2d 399 (1955)

Most recent

  1. Wilkes-Barre v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau4 Pa. D. & C.2d 399 (1955)
  2. Holt v. May68 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. 1952)
  3. Wood v. Fauth35 S.E.2d 178 (N.C. 1945)
  4. Vance v. Vance166 S.E. 901 (N.C. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Joyner v. Futrell., 48 S.E. 649 (N.C. 1904) 21
Harrell v. Blythe., 53 S.E. 232 (N.C. 1906) 21
Farmer v. Daniel, 82 N.C. 152 (1880) 20
Vass v. Arrington, 89 N.C. 10 (1883) 7
McArtan v. McLauchlin, 88 N.C. 391 (1883) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list