Mellen v. Boarman

Citations

• 21 Miss. 100

Syllabus

<p>An administrator in the sale of his intestate’s property sells only the title of the decedent as it exists, neither more nor less; he makes no warranty; if he were to do so, it would probably only bind himself individually, and not the estate which he represents; and if he make no covenants for title, the purchaser takes the risk of the title.</p> <p>If an administrator make representations at his sale, which mislead the purchaser, they may constitute a fraud on the purchaser, but not a covenant.</p> <p>If, in an administrator’s sale, there be neither fraud nor warranty, and the sale be regular, the purchaser is bound to pay his bid.</p> <p>An administrator sold a lot belonging to his intestate ; and at the sale it was proclaimed by a surety of the intestate, that the latter had not paid all the purchase money of the lot, and he as surety had paid part, and intended to claim his right to be subrogated to the lien of the intestate’s vendor; the administrator stated at the sale, that he did not think the claim could be maintained ; the purchaser heard both statements : Held, that the purchaser who afterwards arranged the claim of the surety, by giving him half the lot, could not set up, when sued on the note for the purchase money by the administrator, either a failure of consideration; or set up an offset against it for the amount thus settled with the surety.</p> <p>A debt due by a deceased person, is not an offset under the statute of 1840\\ (Hutch. Code 854,) to a note given to the administrator for property purchased at his sale of the intestate’s property; and this is especially so where the estate is insolvent.</p>