Case ID: ky_61/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE BULLITT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CASE 18 — PETITION EQUITY
    — JUNE 4.
    Watts, &c. vs. Pond, &c.
    APPEAL PROM MALISON CIRCUIT COURT.
    1. In a proceeding lor the sale of infants’ real estate under the statute, the record must show that the commissioners, appointed to report the net value of the infants'* estate, <fce., were sworn; otherwise the court has no jurisdiction to order a sale, and the sale, if made, will be yoid.
    2. The report of the commissioners must show whether the interest of the infants requires the sale to be made, or the sale will be void. It will not be sufficient to state that in their opinion “it would redound to the benefit of the said infants to have said land sold»”
    Squire Turner, for appellants,
    cited Rev. Statutes, (old edition,) page 592 ; 16 B. Mon., 295 ; 18 lb., 781 ; 2 Met., 514.
    C. F. Burnam, for appellees,
    cited Morehead & Brown’s Digest, 808 ; Civil Code, secs. 96, 97.
    
   JUDGE BULLITT

delivered the opinion op the court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, overruling a motion to quash a sale' of infants’ lands, and the bonds for the purchase money given by the appellants.

The record of the proceeding, in which the sale was ordered, does not show that the commissioners, appointed to report the net value of the infants’ estate, &c., were sworn. Their report states that, in their opinion, “ it would redound to the benefit of the said infants to have said land sold.”

The statute declares that, “ before a court shall have jurisdiction to decjee a sale of infants’ lands, three commissioners must be appointed to report, and must report under oath, to the court, the net value of the infants’ j’eal and personal estate, and the annual profits thereof, and whether the interest of the infant or idiot requires the sale to be made.” (R. S., chap. 86, art. 3, sec. 2.)

In this case the court had no jurisdiction to order a sale; first, because the report did not state whether the interest of the infants required the sale to be made ; (Mattingly vs. Read, decided, at the last term ;) secondly, because the commissioners did not report under oath, as required by the statute. The sale was, therefore, void, and the motion should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.