Case ID: ohio_16/html/0231-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Read, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abner Kern’s Administrator v. John Foster.
    An appeal lies from an order of the court of chancery confirming a sale of land made under a previous decree of that court.
    Certiorari is not the proper mode of bringing the question of the legality of such order of confirmation before the Supreme Court.
    This is a writ of certiorari, directed to the court of common pleas of Ross county.
    *The object of the writ is to reverse an order of that court, made when sitting as a court of chancery, at the June term, 1847, confirming the sale of land under a decree for the sale of mortgaged premises.
    The decree was rendered at the April term, 1843. Yarious writs of sale were issued, and appr aisements and re-appraisements were had, from the date of the decree until the sale, a period of more than four years.
    While these proceedings were in progress, the defendant died, on December 24, 1846.
    Tho only error alleged against the confirmation of tho sale is, that it was made after the death of Kern, without a bill of revivor to make his representatives parties.
    J. L> Taylor, for plaintiff in certiorari.
    
    Henry Stanbery, attorney-general, for defendant.
   Read, J.

These proceedings are not properly before us.

writ of certiorari is not the mode of questioning the regularity of a sale and order of confirmation in chancery. An order of confirmation of sale in chancery, is such a final sentence or decree as authorizes an appeal to the Supreme Court, under section 52 of the chancery, act. Swan’s Stat. 713. To sustain appeals from such orders has been the constant practice. The case of Hay v. Schooley, 7 Ohio, 48, pt. 2, and Craig’s Adm’r v. Fox & Miller, decided at the present term, were both appeals from orders of confirmation of sales had under decrees in chancery. The only doubt which ever existed upon this point was, whether such appeal brought up the whole case and opened the original decree; but it was decided in Hay v. Schooley that it only reached the confirmation and proceedings had subsequent to the decree which settled the merits. A plain method existing, then, of bringing the question of confirmation and the regularity of the sale before tho Supreme Court by appeal, we are not disposed to recognize the additional remedy *of a writ of certiorari, which proceeding, if not wholly unknown to chancery, would, at furthest, only be resorted to in cases where there was no other remedy. But the question which it was sought to bring up by this writ has been decided at this term, in tho case of Craig’s Adm’r v. Fox & Miller, adversely to the applicant for this writ, and therefore nothing is lost to the party by its dismissal. Writ dismissed.