Case Name: Alsey Fuller v. Thomas Fowler
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1828-05
Citations: 1 Bail. 75
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alsey Fuller v. Thomas Fowler.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 75–77

Head Matter:
Alsey Fuller v. Thomas Fowler.
Columbia,
May, 1828.
A purchaser of personal property at a sale, made by the Commissioner in Equity, for partition among distrihulees, cannot maintain an action at law, upon an implied warranty, against one of the distributees, who has received his share of the proceeds of the sale, although `the estate has been settled, and there is no acting executor or administrator~
Tried before Mr. Justice GANTT, at Laure~s~ Fall Term, 1827.
AT a sale of the estate and effects of Jonah Fowler, deceased, macic by order of the Court of Equity, for partitiou, the plai~itiff purchased a negro girl, at a full price, for a healthy slave; anc! shortly afterwards paid the purchase money, of which the defendant, who was one of the distributees, received his share. The girl subsequently died, dnd it was alleged that she was unsound at the time of the sale. The plaintiff, thereupon, brought this action by sum. pro. upon the implied warranty, to recover from the defendant the portion of the purchase money received by him.
The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction; and the plea was) sustained by the Court. The plaintiff appealed, and moved to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court.
Fárrow and Irby, for the motion.
O’Neall and.- James, contra.

Opinion:
Colcock, J,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case the motion must be refused. There is no privity of contract existing between these parties ; and it is not every receipt of money which will make a man liable. If the sheriff sell the property of a defendant for the payment of his debt, and receive and pay over the amount to the plaintiff in execution, and the property sold should prove to have been unsound, as well might the purchaser in such case, attempt to sue the creditor who had received the money from the sheriff, as the plaintiff in this case to sue the defendant. The consideration must move between the parties, plaintiff and defendant, when there is no special agreement, in order to maintain an action of assumpsit. The defendant, as to this transaction, is a stranger to the plaintiff ; he did not sell to him, neither did he receive the money from him. If there be any principle of equity, which will compel these co-distributees to contribute to the loss of the plaintiff, he must go into equity; but I confess, I can discover none from the facts which are developed in the report delivered to us. i But this is not to be considered as a deliberate opinion of the Court, as to the plaintiff's right to go into equity. We are clear he cannot recover in this action, and therefore the motion _
Motion refused.
There is no implied warranty in sales by the sheriff, under compulsory process, for payment of a debt. Sturgis v. Sheriff 2 Bay, 169. Davis v. Murray, 2 Mill, 143. Herbemont v. Sharp, 2 McC, 264, Philips v. Bond, Ib. 382. And it would not be much amiss, if the Common Law rale were restored in other cases. But the doctrine of implied warranty still prevails in relation to sales made by the sheriff, in proceedings for partition. Barkley v. Barkley. Harper, 441. And see the case of Tunno v. Flud, 1 McC. 121 where the sale was by the Master in Equity to foreclose a mortgage ; and the parties interested, were held bound by (he implied warranty. In the principal case, the objection to the plaintiff's recovering, seems to have been, not that there was no implied warranty, but that there was no privity in law, between himself and the defendant. Black D. Black. Harper, 412, and see Duncan v. Bell, 2 N. and McC. 153. It docs not appear from the brief, whether the deceased left a will, or whether there was an administration, or whether, as was a very common practice a few years since, the estate was sold and divided without either. In either case, there could be no legal representative, as to the personal estate, but an executor or administrator; and therefore, there was no privity as to an implied warranty, between the purchaser and the distributees. R.