|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN. 329
and pretensions of the heirs of Jordan. They allege and argue,
that Booth, the purchaser, having been one of the sureties in the
bond given by Edmund Key, their guardian, could never have
obtained a legal title to the real estate bought by him, until the
amount claimed by them was fully paid; that he was bound to see
to the proper application of the purchase money, and not having
done so; and the money he paid to Key, their guardian, having
been wasted, it was, as to them, no payment; and therefore the
equitable lien, held by the court, still subsisted for their benefit, to
enable them to enforce the payment of the whole purchase money
which has not come to their hands; and further, that they, as bond
creditors of Booth, have a right now to come here and have their
claim tacked to the equitable lien of the court, and satisfied along
with it in preference to any other of the creditors of Booth.
It will be seen by adverting to the proceedings, that sundry pay-
ments which had been made by Booth, the purchaser, to Key, as
the guardian of these then infant heirs of Richard Jordan, deceased,
were made with their consent expressed after they attained their
full age, and were thereupon ratified and confirmed by the orders
of the court; and therefore, as to all matters covered by such
consent and by the judgment of the court thereupon, it is now
entirely too late to have them opened for re-adjudication, in order
to let in any claim of which these heirs were then fully apprised,
and which they might then have made. They can now sustain no
claim in. opposition to the past orders of the court, in the passing of
which they have not, and cannot allege and shew, that there has
been any fraud, surprise, error, or mistake; and consequently their
claim must be considered and disposed of entirely in accordance
with those past judgments of the court; that is, as being a claim
against Key, their late guardian, for whose default they may hold
Booth liable as one of Key's sureties in his guardian's bond.
The only cases in which a purchaser is bound to see to the
application of the purchase money are where a trust has been
raised by deed or will for the sale of an estate for the payment of
debts and the like; and the trust so raised is of a defined and
limited nature, (p) But such is not the case now before the court.
This sale to Booth was made under a decree in a creditor's suit
A purchaser under a decree can have no concern with the disposi-
tion which the court may make of the purchase money; nor can bis
(p) Sug. Ven. and Pur. 366.
42 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
