Stewart v. Baldwin

Citations

• 86 Wash. 63
• 149 P. 662
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1181

Syllabus

<p>Executobs and Administbatobs — Sales—Validity—Purchase by Executor — Constructive Fraud — Evidence—Sufficiency. Tbe executor, by procuring a sale of tbe real estate to pay debts without giving tbe court an opportunity to determine tbe advisability of remortgaging tbe land, is guilty of a constructive fraud upon tbe beirs, where it appears that tbe bulk of tbe remaining indebtedness was represented by a mortgage for tbe sum of $1,750; that, upon being advised that be must, find a purchaser, be represented that bis son, who was just 21 and without means, would buy tbe property, and cash for tbe bid was procured by arrangements for a new mortgage, tbe property was bid in by tbe son for tbe appraised value $2,000, and father and son gave a new mortgage for tbe amount, secured upon tbe property sold and other property belonging to tbe father; that tbe son paid no consideration, made tbe bid at bis father’s request, received no part of tbe rents and profits, and later conveyed the land to his father without consideration; since, in the absence of statute, an executor may not bid at his own sale, and since the transaction amounted merely to a change of mortgages and transfer of title to the executor; and since, in his fiduciary relation, when he could not sell to any one but himself, equity required and he owed the duty, under Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 1503, 1505, to allow the court to examine witnesses and determine whether it was for the best interests of the estate to sell or to remortgage the property for the purpose of paying the mortgage indebtedness (Holcomb, J., dissents).</p> <p>Same — Constructive Fraud — Notice. A constructive fraud by an executor in indirectly purchasing at his own sale, arises irrespective of his motive or any moral wrong; and the fraud need not be proved by strong convincing evidence, slight circumstances being sufficient in view of his duty as trustee.</p>