Barnes v. M'Clinton

Notice to abidder at sheriff’s sale, that another claims the land, is sufficient to put him in the same situation with regard to a trust, as he as whose property it was, sold. All that is necessary is, to give a purchaser such notice as is sufficient to put him on an inquiry leading to the whole truth. It is not necessary that the notice should contain full, entire, and circumstantial information of every fact which it may be material for the purchaser to know. Notice to counsel in the same transaction is presumptive notice to the client.

Error to Allegheny county. Margaret Barnes, and the other children of James Barnes, deceased, brought this action of ejectment against Bobert Morgan and Nathaniel M’ Clinton, to recover one hundred and eighty acres of land. Upon the settlement of the estate of James Barnes, deceased, there was a sum of money due to his children, which came to the hands of Andrew Scott, with which, it was alleged-by the plaintiffs,• he purchased the land in dispute, in trust for them; gpd some evidence of Scott’s parol declarations, establishing this, trust, was given. Scott died insolvent, and the land was levied on and sold by the sheriff, and purchased by Nathaniel M’Clinton, one of the defendants. The only question of law, which was argued and decided by this court was, whether the evidence of notice to M’ Clinton of this trust, at the time he purchased the land, was such, as to place him, with regard to the title, in the same situation in which Scott stood. On this subject Mr, Fetterpiian, testified, that he was present when the land was sold, and read a notice, the substance of which was, “That Barnes’ heirs claimed the land; and any one who would purchase it, would buy a lary-suit. ” Evidence was also given that this notice was communicated to M’ Clinton. The court below was of opinion tliat suph notice was not sufficient, and so instructed the jury, whq found a verdict for the defendants. Contended, that the only notice that was necessary, was such as would put the purchaser upon his guard, and lead him to inquire gfter the truth; and that the notioe in this case wa? abundantly suff ficient. The defendant is the purchaser of the legal title at sheriff’s sale; and the question is, as to the kind of notice of a claim like the present, with which thp purchaser shall be affected. Proof that a counsel, whom the purchaser consults, had notice, derived from previous transaction^, is not sufficient. 2 Bilk. 242. 3 Bilk. 392, Sag. on Fen. 535. Counsel, attorney, pr agent of the party, not admitted to prove nptice. Svg. on Fen. 548-9. In this case, the only evidence of notipe to tlie purchaser, is that of Mr. Riddle, who was employed by him to examine the title, and who says, that he saw Mr. f¿Herman’s notice, and thinks (thpugh he is not certain,) that he mentioned it to M’ Clinton. The person giving notice must be interested; he must have authority to give the notice; and he must disclose that authority at the time of giving it. Niig. 512, 532, &c. Ii; this case, it does not appear that the notice dis-> closed the interest pr authority of the person who gave it. There must be np.tice of the kind of claim. Vague, loose, and general noticp is not sufficient. The owner of the legal title should have direct, express and positive notice, otherwise he takes the property discharged of the trust, which existed between the original parties, 14 Serg. fy Rawle, 333. There should be clear proof of actual notice. The notice should be actual, circ%b%nstantial in the transaction, and by the party in interest. Nothing short of this, which is actúa] fraud, will postpone a legal title; and the fraud ?nust be very clearly proved. 8 Serg. fy Rawle, 496. 3 Cruise, 363. 2 JUtle. 275. 2 Mass. 506. 2 Vernon, 159. 5 Serg. fy Rawle, 257, 261. 1 Rawle, 386. The registry of a deed defectively proved or acknowledged, is not constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser, although the registry be made in the proper county. 2 Bin. 40. It is for the interest of the public that land should sell for its fair value at sheriff’s sale, and that honest purchasers should not be disturbed by secret trusts. 3 Bin. 89. In cases like the present, persons alleging the existence of a trust, should be required to disclose at the time of the sale, a circumstantial account of the nature and circumstances of the trust. This might be done by leaving a statement in writing in the hands of the sheriff, to which bidders might be referred. Here the notice was merely, “that the heirs of Barnes had a claim;” and, even if it were brought home to the purchaser, he was not bound to regard it.