Webb v. Chisolm

Citations

• 24 S.C. 487
• 1886 S.C. LEXIS 69

Syllabus

<p>1. A purchaser cannot be compelled to take a doubtful title, but the court acts on moral certainty, and a purchaser will not be permitted to object to a title on account of a bare possibility. Laurens v. Lucas, 6 Rich. Eq., 222, recognised and followed.</p> <p>2. Where an executrix and life tenant had full power under the will to sell the land devised and make titles therefor, provided the proceeds “be reinvested in bank or other stocks or other property,” her deed made under this power carried a good title, and it was not the duty of the purchaser to see to the proper application of the purchase money, in the sense that a misapplication of the same could defeat his title. The same principle applied to another power in this case.</p> <p>3. But the purchaser having given his bond and mortgage for the purchase money, and all of the adult remaindermen, except two, having released their interest therein to him, one of those two being largely indebted to the purchaser, and the other not heard from in twelve years, and the only infant having signed this release and not complained for six years after his majority — there was not any misapplication of the purchase money.</p> <p>4. A deed properly executed, even if improperly probated, is binding on the maker.</p> <p>. 5. In action for specific performance of an agreement to purchase a city lot, the Circuit Judge may, in his discretion, decree that each party pay his own costs.</p>