Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-28

cover $500 on the buildings, $46667 on
the machinery and 1898 on lumber
and material. On March 5th, 1901. the
receiver obtained authority by decree
OIL the court to sell the property insured
and the assets of the plaintiff company
and make report of the sale to the
court for confirmation. On the 18th
day of September. 1901, he sold the
property insured at auction for $1,000 to
George +. Duncan OF Portland, Maine,
VINO deposited the sum Of $1,000 accord
ing 20 the conditions of the sale. On
the Nth dag of December, 1901, the sale
was confirmed by the court and the
receiver executed a bill of sale to Mr..
Duncan. Duncan never went to the
mill but the receiver and his tenants
continued in possession and operated
the mill until it was destroyed by fire.
The receiver obtained permission from
the court to bring suit against the sew
eral insurance companies and this suit
was commenced April 3. 1902. On the
18th day of November, 1902, on the
petition of Duncan the decree confirm
ing the sale to him was vacated and
rescinded and the $1,000 paid by him
was ordered to be repaid
The policy is in the Maine Standard
form and contains the provision that
1t shall be void IF without the consent
in writing OF in print of the company
said property should be sold, or this
policy assigned. etc. The case de-
ponds primarily upon the effect on the
policy of the receivers sale and its
mr. ,Ey,rn H.
the policy under this provision the sale
must be such as passed title to the
property. There was no actual de-
livery Of possession by the receiver to
the purchaser. In cases Of the sale of
personal property between individuals
where no question affecting the rights
of other parties exists the title may
pass without delivery of the property
but the validity of judicial sales de-
ponds upon somewhat different rules.
The authorities hold that until there
has been delivery Of a deed of real
estate sold at a judicial sale the title
did not pass and In judicial sales of
personal property the execution OF in
struments of conveyance is necessary
as part of the requisites Of the sales.
The failure of the officer Of the court
to comply with statutory provisions or
with the decree Of an equity court or
dering and confirming a sale. would
render it non-judicial and void. There
is conflict Of testimony relative to the
fact Of the delivery of the bill of sale
to Duncan but II made at all It must
have been only provisional for 1t was
mt such a delivery a a Was cont e,,,plat.
ed and directed in the confirmatory or
der. It was to be made by the re-
ceiver simultaneously with the pay
ment to him of the purchase price. No
other delivery was authorized or could
have any legal effect to pass the title
This conclusion negatives completed
sale Of the property and mere ex-
ecutory contract or inchoate sale would
not make the policy void under the
forfeiture clause.
The decree OF annulment was based
upon the finding as matter Of fact that
the sale of Duncan had not been cons
pIeted. that the title did not pass to
him. 1t Is well established by decided
cases that such decree would deter
mine the status oAthe title as between
the parties to thei ale and we think
it, val5dify can lot be impeached
coIIateraliy by thd insurance conn
panjes IN this case The evidence
shows that The loss exceeded the whole
amount insured.
underwent for, the plaintiff for 5000
spd interest from February 11th, lsez,
Reed Dec 114ths ~
n