Cochrane v. Burton
Before: Garoutte
Synopsis
Estates op Deceased Persons—Sale op Realty—Confirmation—Market Value—Effect op Litigation.—If the real estate of a deceased person has been sold by order of the court upon due notice at public auction, and the sale was fairly made and legally conducted, and the sum bid was not disproportionate to the value of the property at the time of the sale, and no sum exceeding the bid could be obtained in case a new sale were had, and no offer of any kind in excess of the bid has been made to the court, the confirmation of the sale cannot be properly objected to by the heirs upon the ground that they had commenced litigation concerning the property, and had notified purchasers at the sale that they were purchasing a lawsuit, and that if it were not for the lawsuit the market value of the property would have been a sum largely in excess of the amount bid.
Id.—Findings—Value op Property—Contingency.—If the court finds that the sum bid was not disproportionate to the value of the property, and was its full market value, and that no larger sum could be obtained at a new sale, and that no offer was made for an increased bid, a finding that the market value would have been a much larger sum if it had not been for the doubt and uncertainty caused by the litigation is in no sense a finding that the market value was, at the time of the sale, a much larger sum, and is no finding of value at all.
Id.—Reasons fob Depreciation in Market Value — Judgment of Court—Present Value.—The reasons for the depreciation in the market value of property, or for the present market value, are immaterial, and cannot control the court in its judgment as to whether or not a sale should be made, but the present value of the land is the important and controlling element in the case.
Garoutte, J. This is an appeal from an order of the superior coupt of San Diego county, made and entered on the twenty-second day of March, 1894, confirming the sale of the Bancho Jamul, made by the pespondent Henry H. Burton, as administrator of the éstate of Henry S. Burton, deceased, to the respondent J. Wade McDonald, on the twenty-fourth day of February, 1894. The objections to the confirmation of the sale were made by the heirs of the deceased, and they now prosecute this appeal. For a reversal of the judgment they rely upon the claim that the sum bid, and for which the sale was made and confirmed, was disproportionate to the value of the land sold.
Upon the hearing of the application for confirmation, and the objections thereto, the court took testimony and made findings of fact to the following effect: 1. That, after due notice given, said property was sold at public auction at the courthouse door, in the city of Sari Diego, for the sum of thirty-eight thousand dollars; 2. That said sale was in all respects fairly and legally conducted and made, and that said sum bid was not disproportionate to the value of the property; 3. That no sum [355]exceeding such bid ten per cent, or exceeding said bid in any sum or amount whatsoever, can be obtained if a new sale was had, and no offer of any kind in excess of the aforesaid bid has been made to the court; 4. “That prior to said sale, and at the time thereof, the said objectors to the confirmation of said sale had by the commencement of certain litigation in respect of said property and the previous orders of this court with reference thereto, and which litigation is still pending and undetermined, and by public threats of further litigation, and notification publicly made at the time and place of said sale that any purchaser of said land at the same time would ‘purchase a lawsuit,’ and other declarations of like character and effect, created such a feeling of distrust and uncertainty as to the title that any purchaser of said property at said sale should or might acquire thereto by virtue of said sale and the confirmation thereof by this court, and the execution and delivery of an administrator’s deed for said property, that the said sum of thirty-eight thousand dollars so bid by the said J. Wade McDonald therefor was and is the full market value of said property, although but for such feeling of doubt and uncertainty, so created by said objectors, the market value of said property would then and there have been the sum of eighty thousand dollars, or thereabouts, as claimed by said objectors.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)