The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-05-29
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported Weekly by J. w. Jenkins,
A:I0rnry AT Law.
APRIL TERM. 1850.

IL. b. MCGEE,
VS..
W. A. WALLIS ct al,
Appeal from the Chancery Court o
Holmes county, Hon. Il. W. Williamson
Chancellor.
Joseph Wallis was guardian of the fOul
minor children of his deceased brother
and as such, was indebted to each one Of
his wards. He died in November 1861
without having made a final settlement OF
his accounts. He left will, which was
afterwards duly probatcd, in which he
appointed one Weatherly AS his executor,
and devised to him all his real and per-
sonal estate to have and hold the same in
trust for the payment Of his debts. The
will directed that Immediately after his
death his real estate and perishable proper
ty should be sold by the executor, and that
his debts should be paid, and the remainder
invested for the benefit of his heirs.
Weatherly the executor settled the guar
dianship accounts of Joseph Wallis, and a
considerable sum was found due to each of
the wards, for which DEGREES were entered
in the Probate Court against said executor,
authorizing executions to be issued for the
collection of the same. In 1866, executions
were issued on the DEGREES and placed into
the hands of the Sheriff of Attala county
who levied the same on tract of land
which belonged to the deceased guardian,
testatOr, at the time of his death. The
said Sheriff, after due advertisement,
offered said land to the highest bidder, and
appellant, MCGEE, became the purchaser
at the sum of 5000. lie paid his bid to
the Sheriff, who paid it to the plaintiff III
the execution. Niece afterwards sold the
land, with warranty of title, to another
one of appellants who sold to the third.
In 1879, the heirs of the said Joseph
Wallis, brought ejectment and recovered
the land, upon the ground that the sale
was void, the execution and judgment
against the executor not authorizing Il
levy on realty.
On this state Of facts the appellants filed
their bill in the Court below, seeking to
restrain the enforcement of the judgment in
cicctmcnt, until the plaintiffs therein
should pay the purchase money bid at the
Sheriff. sale, and which had gone to the
discharge of Il valid debt of Joseph Wallis,
the ancestor Of the plaintiffs in eiectment
The defendants in that bill the appellees
here dcmurred to it and their demurrer
was sustained and the bill dismissed. The
The complanants appealed.
4. c. Catchings for appellants.
II. a. anderson for appellces.
GEORGE, g. j.,
Held-
I. The principle that where a 50na tide |
posscssOr or purchaser of real estate paws |
money to discharge an existing encum- /
brancc or charge upon the'estate, having no /
notice Of any infrmity in his title, he has a |
right to be repaid the amount Of such pay |
ment 10y the true owner seeking to recover |
the estate from him. " seems now to be /
fully established.
,. The right Of the purchaser to demand |
restitution is grounded on his good faith
in making the purchase. The duty Of the
owner to make the restitution arises from
hi having received the benefit Of the
money Of the purchaser in relieving his
estate from legal charge.
.. The principle has been applied in this
State to other eases besides sales. In its
most enlarged application, il may he said
10 embrace all cases in which 4 person
advances money with sthe intent that il
shall be applied, and Il j. actually applied
To remove . legal charge from an estate
belonging to another. where the advance
is in consequence Of belief on the part Of
the creditor. whether well or ill founded.
that he 10 whom he makes the advance.
stands I'm such relation 20 the estate that
he has a right 10 make tho application.
4. We unhesitatingly announce our con-
rurrenee in the principle which entities
the complsinants to relief. It would be