Wayne County MI Archives Court.....Beaubien, V. Poupard 1837
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/mi/mifiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 August 9, 2008, 7:17 am

Source: Cases In Chancery
Written: 1837

CASES IN CHANCERY
FIRST CIRCUIT.

Emily Beaubien and others v. Simon Poupard, Administrator, etc.

Administrator's sale, when should be adjourned. When the day appointed for an 
administrator's sale is rainy and inclement, and but few persons appear and 
bid, and the bids do not exceed half the value of the property, it is the duty 
of the administrator to adjourn the sale. 

Administrator's sale: Administrator cannot bid. A party cannot become the 
purchaser, either directly or indirectly, at a sale made by himself as 
administrator. (a.) 

Where the administrator procured his brother-in-law to become the purchaser, 
and immediately afterwards took a conveyance of the premises so purchased to 
himself, the court of chancery, on bill filed by the heirs, set aside the 
sale, ordered the deed delivered up to be canceled, and directed a re-sale.

The bill alleges, in substance, that Lambert Beaubien was in his lifetime 
seized in fee simple of a certain tract of land situated in the county of 
Wayne, described in the bill of complaint; that said Lambert died in the month 
of September, 1819, intestate, leaving Jean Bt. Beaubien, the father of the 
complainants, and thirteen other children his heirs at law; that said Jean Bt. 
Beaubien, the father of the complainants, as aforesaid, died in the month of 
December, 1828, intestate, whereby complainants became seized and possessed of 
the undivided one-fourteenth part of said tract of land; that on the fifth day 
of October, 1829, Cecil Beaubien, the widow of said Jean Bt. Beaubien and 
mother of the complainants, presented a petition to the judge of probate of 
Wayne county, praying that administration on the estate of said Jean Bt. might 
be granted to her; but before any action was had on said petition, the 
defendant also presented an application to said judge for letters of 
administration on the estate of said Jean Bt. Beaubien; that April 23d, 1830, 
the said defendant, with the assent of said Cecil, was duly appointed 
administrator on the estate of said Jean Bt. Beaubien, and took upon himself 
that trust according to law; that an inventory of the estate was duly filed in 
the office of said judge of probate, by which it appeared that the real estate 
was appraised at $800, and the personal estate at $81.92; that on or about the 
6th day of December, 1830, the said defendant presented to said judge of 
probate a paper, representing among other things, that he believed the estate 
of said Jean Bt. was indebted in the sum of four hundred dollars, and that the 
said estate was insolvent, and prayed the appointment of commissioners to 
examine the claims of the several creditors of said estate, which prayer was 
granted, and the commissioners appointed; after executing the trust reposed in 
them they made their report, by which it appeared that all the claims allowed 
against said estate amounted only to the sum of $110.26; that on the 17th day 
of October, 1831, the defendant, as administrator aforesaid, presented a 
further petition to said judge of probate, stating among other things that the 
personal estate of said Jean Bt. was insufficient to pay the debts due by said 
Jean Bt. at the time of his death, and the charges of administration, and 
praying to be licensed and empowered to sell so much of the real estate of 
which the said Jean Bt. died seized as might be sufficient to pay said debt 
and charges; that on the 7th day of November, 1831, the prayer of the said 
defendant, administrator as aforesaid, was granted, and license was granted to 
sell certain lots, specified, or so much thereof as might be necessary for the 
purposes aforesaid, said lots having been duly set off to complainants by the 
circuit court of said county, upon a partition of the said real estate of 
which the said Lambert Beaubien died seized; that on the 20th day of October, 
1832, the said defendant, as administrator, having first given the bond, taken 
the oath, etc., required by law, did sell at public auction the one lot 
numbered 12, at which sale the same was struck off to one Louis Beaubien, the 
brother-in-law of said defendant, for the sum of $150.

The bill charges, that although the said lot numbered 12 was at said sale 
struck off to said Louis, yet the said purchase by him was made pursuant to an 
understanding or arrangement entered into previous to said sale between said 
defendant and said Louis, and that said sale was to accrue to the benefit of 
said defendant.

The bill avers that on the 30th of November, 1832, the said defendant, in his 
capacity as administrator, aforesaid, did execute and deliver in due form of 
law to said Louis, a deed of said lot numbered 12, and that on the same day 
the said Louis and his wife, for the consideration of $150, did quit claim to 
said defendant said lot No. 12; and further, that December 3, 1832, the 
defendant did further cause both of said deeds to be duly recorded at his own 
cost and charges.

The bill further charges that the defendant further disregarded the rights and 
interests of the complainants, who were infants, by not offering for sale some 
one or more of the other lots he was authorized to make sale of, instead of 
said lot No. 12, the said lot being a water lot and not salable, while the 
others were eligibly situated and in demand, and would have sold for a 
comparatively much higher price.

That said lot No. 12 would have sold for a much greater sum, but for the 
fraudulent conduct of the defendant; in proof whereof the complainants aver 
that the said defendant concealed the time of sale from the guardian of the 
complainants, who had made arrangements to prevent a sacrifice of their 
interests, until the day of sale, although the said defendant promised to give 
said guardian timely notice thereof.

That after said lot No. 12 was advertised for sale, the said guardian applied 
to the defendant, and desired to be informed in due season of the day of sale, 
to which the defendant replied to said guardian, who was unlettered, and 
unable to read or write, that he could not state with precision the time of 
sale, although he well knew he had appointed a day for that purpose. That the 
guardian, on being advised, by the defendant that the said sale was to take 
place forthwith, remonstrated with the defendant for his neglect in not giving 
her timely notice, etc., and urged the propriety of postponing the said sale; 
to which the defendant replied that said sale could not be postponed.

That there were but few bidders at said sale, and that the weather was 
inclement, notwithstanding which the said defendant refused to postpone said 
sale, and that said lot sold for about one-half its real value.

The bill further charges, that the information with regard to the day of .sale 
was withheld from the guardian of the complainants, by the defendant, in order 
that he might promote his own interest; avers that the defendant owned a lot 
adjoining said lot No. 12, which would be greatly enhanced by obtaining said 
lot No. 12.

The bill further states that the defendant, before said sale, said that he 
would procure some person to bid in said lot for him, as he could not legally 
or lawfully purchase it himself. And the bill prays that the sale may be set 
aside and a re-sale ordered.

The answer admits that Lambert Beaubien was, in his lifetime, seized of the 
premises; that license was granted to sell the same by the judge of probate, 
and that lot No. 12 was sold October 20th, 1832, at public auction, by 
defendant, as administrator, and that the same was struck off to Louis 
Beaubien, the brother-in-law to said defendant, for the sum of $150; states 
that said Louis Beaubien was the highest bidder, and that $150 was the highest 
sum bidden therefor.

The answer further states that, among many other citizens whom defendant 
solicited and urged to attend said sale, with a view of making a beneficial 
sale for said estate, of said lot, he spoke to said Louis Beaubien to attend 
and bid for the same, and that defendant told the said Louis, if he bid on 
said lot, and it was knocked off to him, this defendant would take it from 
him, but defendant and the said Louis both distinctly understood that, if it 
was knocked down to said Louis, he was at full and perfect liberty to keep the 
same, at the price bid therefor; and that there was no agreement, or any 
public or private understanding by or between the said Louis and this 
defendant, as charged in said bill, that he, the said Louis, was purchasing 
the same for defendant; but the said defendant so spoke to the said Louis, to 
induce him to bid for the same, and with the sole view of making the lot sell 
for a fair value. Denies that the deed from defendant, as administrator, to 
Louis Beaubien, of said lot No. 12, and the deed from said Louis Beaubien and 
wTife to defendant, were recorded on the same day, and the record of both 
deeds paid for by defendant; denies that defendant disregarded the rights and 
interests of the complainants, by not offering some one or more of the other 
lots, instead of lot No. 12. The answer further states that the defendant " 
does not now remember whether, on the day of sale, the said guardian, or any 
other person, desired a postponement of the sale;" denies that defendant ever 
told the said guardian that said sale could not be postponed; admits defendant 
owned the adjoining lot in the right of his wife; states that defendant does 
not remember that he ever stated, before the sale, that he would procure some 
person to bid in said lot as charged in the bill; denies all fraud, etc.
Whipple and Van Dyke, for complainants.

B. F. H. Witherell, for defendants. 

The Chancellor.—The several allegations in the bill, upon which relief is 
sought, are sufficiently met by the answer, except so far as they relate to 
the sale of the lot in question.

The proceedings before the court of probate, and notice of the sale, etc., 
seem to have been regular and fair. It is alleged in the bill, and is not 
denied in the answer, that the administrator, before the sale, expressed a 
desire or intention to purchase the lot. It also appears that he requested 
Louis Beaubien to attend the sale; that Louis Beaubien told him that he had no 
money, to which Poupard replied, he would lend him the money or would take the 
lot; that the day of sale was rainy and inclement, and there were but one or 
two persons who bid on the lot besides Beaubien, who purchased it; and that 
the lot was agreed to be conveyed to Beaubien, and by him back to Poupard, on 
their return from the sale. The inference, I think, is strong that the sale 
was, in fact, to Beaubien, for the benefit of Poupard, although there does not 
appear to have been an express agreement to that effect. Else why the strong 
urgency that Beaubien, who confessedly had no money to pay for the lot, should 
attend the sale ? Poupard, it seeing, knew that Beaubien could not pay for the 
lot, and the offer to lend him money or take the lot off his hands, still 
leaving the option with Poupard to do either the one or the other, and the 
known fact that Beaubien was unable to buy himself, in effect secured the lot 
to Poupard, and it was so consummated immediately after the sale. The 
administrator, I think, erred, acting in the capacity he did, in not 
adjourning the sale, when the day was rainy and inclement, and there were but 
one or two bidders beside Beaubien. It may have been that the desire of 
Poupard to secure the lot had no influence upon this decision. But if a sale 
of this character should be sustained, it would open the door for frauds, and 
would certainly throw great temptations before trustees acting in this 
capacity. I am satisfied that Louis Beaubien had no intention of aiding 
Poupard in purchasing the lot improperly; but he purchased under the promise 
that Poupard would take it off his hands. It makes no difference by what means 
an administrator secures the benefit of a purchase at a sale made by himself; 
the rule is imperative that he cannot become a purchaser at all. (12 Peters 
Rep., 25; Hart v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns, Ch., 62.)

I see no reason to suppose that Poupard intended, in fact, to commit a fraud 
upon the rights of the heirs, but enough appears to show that he intended to 
secure the lot under the sale. To sustain this sale would, in effect, break 
down the salutary rules of law upon this subject, and expose the rights of 
minors to the adroit management of an interested trustee.

The sale must be set aside, and the deed to Beaubien, and from him to Poupard, 
canceled, and a re-sale ordered, according to the prayer in the bill.

-------------------------
(a.) See this case approved and applied to persons acting in various 
representative capacities, in Dwight v. Blackmar, 2 Mich., 330; People v. 
Township Board of Overyssel, 11 Mich., 226. And see Walton v. Torrey, post, 
259; Clute v. Baron, 2 Mich., 192; Ingerson v. Starkweather, Wal. Ch., 346; 
Ames v. Port Huron Log Driving and Booming Co., 11 Mich., 139; Flint & Pere 
Marquette R. R. Co. v. Dewey, 14 Mich., 477.

Additional Comments:
CASES DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
BY ELON FARNSWORTH, Chancellor 

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/mi/wayne/court/beaubien41gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/mifiles/

File size: 13.8 Kb