Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

196 N.C. 242

145 S.E 231

Parker v. . Dickinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1928

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1928-10-31

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1955

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-10-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beogden, J.

¶1 Does confirmation of a sale or of an actual partition take effect upon the date of confirmation or at the date of the sale ?

¶2 Until, a judicial sale has been confirmed the purchaser is a mere preferred proposer. Confirmation is an act of consent and approval which the court gives to the sale, and, for all practical purposes the.court is the vendor.in such cases, and within the limitations prescribed by law, may give or withhold its consent in its discretion. Harrell v. Blythe, 140 N. C., 415, 53 S. E., 232. However, when the transaction is completed by confirmation, and thereupon title is conveyed to the purchaser, confirmation relates back to the day of the sale and the purchaser receives his title as of that time. Farmer v. Daniel, 82 N. C., 152; McArtan v. McLaughlin, 88 N. C., 391; Vass v. Arrington, 89 N. C., 10; Joyner v. Futrell, 136 N. C., 301, 48 S. E., 649.

¶3 Incidentally, it was contended that a, sale of all the tracts of land described in the petition was not necessary to pay debts. In-proper cases this contention would perhaps be worthy of serious consideration, but in the case at bar all the parties requested that all the land described in the petition be sold. Hence a discussion of the question would be wholly academic.

¶4 Affirmed.

/196/nc/242 · .json · Public domain