Lee v. Swepson

Citations

• 76 Va. 173
• 1882 Va. LEXIS 15

Syllabus

<p>1. Commissioner op Sales.—The bond with security required of him is for the benefit of those entitled to the proceeds. If he collects without giving bond, and they ratify his act and look to him for payment, no one else can complain or claim that any equity is raised in his favor.</p> <p>2. Idem—Subrogation.—If purchaser should have to pay a second time, he would be substituted to the creditor’s rights under a decree requiring the commissioner to pay them.</p> <p>3. Idem—Lien of decree—Case at bar.—Commissioner made sale under de~ cree, and received one-third of purchase-money, without giving bond as required; sale reported and confirmed and decree entered directing him, out of funds reported in Ms hands, to pay certain creditors therein mentioned, which he failed to do. The decree was docketed, and five days later he conveyed in trust his own real estate to secure his creditor, L. On bill by creditors in the decree mentioned, to enforce it against that real estate, he having become insolvent—</p> <p>■Held :</p> <p>1. Under Code 1873, ch. 182, §§ 1 and 2, the decree against commissioner had effect of a judgment, and being docketed, L was affected with notice of same, though purchaser paid commissioner in his own wrong.</p> <p>2. L has no claim to be subrogated to the rights of the creditors against the purchaser, having no equity superior to that of the latter.</p> <p>4. Lloyd v. Emis' Adm'r, 29 Gratt. 598, explained and limited to the facts of that case.</p>