Case ID: g-j_11/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dorsey, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Buchanan and others, vs. Torrance, Lorman and others.
    
    December, 1840.
    To warrant a Court of Chancery in entering a judgment, obtained on a bond given for the whole purchase, money of real property, sold and delivered to the complainant, satisfied, or perpetually enjoining the same, it must vacate the sale upon which the bond was given.
    To vacate a sale of real property, the purchaser, or in case of his death, his heirs, ought regularly to be parties to the cause.
    Where proceedings, in another State, by an inhabitant of this, are complained of, and a party injured seeks to enjoin such proceedings, it is his duty to exhibit to them, to enable the court to act advisedly on the subject.
    Where want of allegations in the pleadings, or exhibits, or parties, prevent this court from determining upon the merits of the complaint manifestly intended, to be submitted, and in relation to which relief was expressly prayed, it is its duty under the act, of 1832, to rpmand the cause for such further proceedings, as its nature may require.
    Appeal from the Court of Chancery.
    On the 28th October 1836, James A. Buchanan, Esther S. 
      
      Buchanan and Samuel Smith Buchanan, filed their bill, alleging, that Eliza S. Buchanan purchased of a certain George Torrance, one undivided fifth part of the Warren Factory, lands, &c., for the sum of $60,000, and in order to secure the payment of such sum, executed and delivered to said Torrance a bond, with James A. Buchanan,, Esther S. Buchanan and others as securities, and the said Torrance, at the same time gave the said Eliza S. Buchanan, a bond of conveyance for the’said property; that said Torrance recovered a judgment on the said bond of Eliza S. Buchanan, whieb was assigned by said Torrance, to and for the use of William Lorman, Alexander Lorman and William Fulford, all of whom at the time of such assignment, well knew the consideration of such bond, and the origin thereof. The bill further alleged, that at the time when Torrance contracted to sell, &c., to said Eliza S. Buchanan, he had executed to said Fulford, a mortgage to secure him a large sum of money, wdiich mortgage was afterwards assigned to William and Alexander Lorman,, and a further mortgage executed by Torrance to Lorman; that the cotton mill of said Factory being burnt down, said W. and A. Lorman received the insurance money due said Torrance;’ that afterwards said W and A. Lorman, filed their bill of complaint in Baltimore county court, against said Torrance, to procure a sale of said mortgaged premises, and such proceedings were had thereupon, that the whole of said premises were sold, and the whole right, title and interest of the said William and Alexander Lorman, and George Torrance, sold and conveyed to the purchaser thereof; that the whole consideration money for which said bond was given, has totally failed; that the said Torrance and Lorman have divested themselves entirely of every vestige of title to said property, which was the consideration of said bond;' that Torrance and Lormans issued an execution on their judgment against James A'.- Buchanan, and compelled him to apply for relief under the insolvent laws, and that S. S. Buchanan is his trustee, and has bonded as such. The bill further alleged, that Torrance, Lorman and Fulford, have, for the purpose of further enforcing their judgment, filed their bill in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and* Chancery of the State of Virginia, for the twentieth circuit* and have obtained a decree therein for the sale of a quantity of land, asserted to be the property of the said James A. Buchanan/ that it is the intention of the said Lorman and Torrance, to sell said property under and by virtue of the aforesaid decree, to the great prejudice of these complainants, and against the rules and principles of equity. Prayer for an injunction— that the judgments at law be entered satisfied, and for general-relief. And Subpcena against Lormans and Torrance.
    
    With this bill was exhibited as a part thereof, No. 1. The bond* of Elizabeth S. Buchanan, J. A. Buchanan, W. B. Buchanan, Esther S. Buchanan and R. S. Buchanan, to George Torrance, dated 16th April 1829, in the penalty of f120,000, conditioned to pay on or before the 16th April day of 1839, <$60,000, and legal interest thereon, in the meanjime, quarter yearly on, &c.
    Exhibit No. 2, was a transcript of the record of the judgment on the above bond, George Torrance, use of William Fulford, William, Lorman and Alexander Lorman, against J. A. Buchanan, William B. Buchanan, Esther S. Buchanan arvd Robert S. Buchanan, surviving obligees of Eliza S. Buchanan, rendered on the 12th December 1832, with a ca. sa. returned cepi — J. A. B., W. B. and R. S. B., released by the insolvent laws, non sunt the others.
    Exhibit No. 3, was a mortgage from George Torrance to William Fulford, of 13th August 1830, of his undivided one-fifth' of the Warren Factory. Subject to the operation of his bond of conveyance to E. S.fBuchanan.
    
    Exhibit No. 4,'was the assignment by William Fulford, of his mortgage to William and Alexander Lorman, dated 7th May 1834.
    Exhibit No'. 5, was a mortgage from George Torrance to William and Alexander Lorman, of 30th November 1831.
    Exhibit No. 6, was a transcript of the proceedings in equity of William and Alexander Lorman, against George Torrance* to forclose a mortgage of 21st August 1829, to William Ful--
      
      Jbrd, assigned to complainants, and the other mortgages under which the Warren Factory was sold and transferred.
    Exhibit No. 7, was the deed from the trustee under the decree of the Factory, and No. 8, the proceedings of James A. Buchanan, before the Commissioners of Insolvent Debtors.
    The answer of William Lorman, Alexander Lorman and George Torrance, admitting the facts of the bill, and that they claimed under mortgages of 21st August 1829, 13th August 1830, and 30th November 1831; and that they were proceeding in Virginia as stated, to recover the balance due on the judgment of 12th of December 1832.
    A commission was issued by the complainants, but no proof was taken under it.
    At December term 1837, the bill was dismissed by the Chancellor (Bland,) and the complainants appealed.
    The cause was argued before Stephen, Archer, Dorsey, Chambers, and Spence, J.
    By Richardson and R. Johnson for the appellants, and
    By David Stewart for the appellees.
   Dorsey, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case now before the court, is emphatically one which it was designed to embrace under the 6th section of the act of 1832, chap. 302. Neither the reversal, or affirmance of the Chancellor’s decree, will determine the merits of the cause; and the purposes of justice will be advanced by remanding the case to the Court of Chancery, and giving the parties an opportunity of amending the bill, answers, and other proceedings in the cause, making new parties thereto, filing the proper exhibits, and taking such testimony as the nature of the case may require. The complainants have filed their bill, praying amongst other things, that a judgment obtained against them as securities of Eliza S. Buchanan, on a bond given to George Torrance, for the purchase money of one-fifth part of the Warren Factory, &c., sold by the latter to the former, might be entered satisfied, on the ground, that the said one-fifth having been sold and conveyed under incumbrances created by Torrance, the entire consideration for the said bond and judgment had failed. To warrant the Court of Chancery in entering the judgment satisfied, or perpetually enjoining the same, it must vacate the sale made by Torrance to Eliza S. Buchanan. In the case now before the court, this could not have been done, as neither Eliza S. Buchanan, nor her heirs,, if she were dead, were made parties by the bill, either, as complainants or defendants. Over the rights therefore, by her acquired under the purchase, the Chancellor had no power to adjudicate; ahd consequently could not grant the relief sought, either as to the entry of satisfaction of the judgment, or perpetually enjoining it. Nor could the Chancery Court decree upon the merits of the application, as respects the proceedings in the court of Virginia, against the lands of James A. Buchanan, as the complainants exhibit, in relation thereto, had never been filed; which exhibit was necessary to furnish the court with the dates and character of those proceedings, without the knowledge of which, it was impossible for the court to act advisedly on the subject. The complainant’s exhibit of the first mortgage from Torrance to William Fulford, has never been filed.

For the reasons and purposes assigned, this court will sign an order remanding this case to the Court of Chancery.

cause remanded.