Case ID: wash_1/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Durbar, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 117.
    Decided December 19, 1890.]
    John F. Terry and J. B. Alexander, Jr., v. Harrison Clothier and J. E. Smith, Administrators, et al.
    
    DECEDENT'S ESTATE — SETTING- ASIDE SALE — PARTIES.
    Objections to the confirmation of sale of a decendent’s real estate can be made only by parties interested in the estate.
    
      Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County.
    
    This was an action originally brought by Caroline Ball, personally, and as guardian of her infant children, together with J. F. Terry and J. B. Alexander, Jr., as co-plaintiffs, against Harrison Clothier and J. E. Smith, administrators of the estate of Jesse B. Ball, deceased, the husband of said Caroline, and J. E. Millett and Charles yon Pressentin, as defendants, to set aside and vacate the sale of the land of said intestate, made under the order of the probate court by the said Clothier and Smith, administrators, as fraudulent and void. After said original complaint was filed, Caroline Ball directed that her name and that of her wards be dropped from the suit; whereupon the other plaintiffs, J. F. Terry and J. B. Alexander,'filed an amended complaint, making Caroline Ball and her wards co-defendants with those previously joined. The amended complaint alleged that the attorneys of plaintiffs attended at the probate court, within the time limited by law for the purpose of putting on an increased bid of ten per cent., exclusive of expenses of a new sale, upon the price bid at the fraudulent sale of the land, and for the purpose of objecting- to the confirmation of said sale, and were prevented from so doing by the probate judge purposely absenting himself from his office, to prevent such objection to the fraudulent sale being made; and that plaintiffs were able, ready and willing at the time last mentioned to pay said increased sum for said land. Demurrer to the amended complaint sustained, and Iilaintiffs electing to stand upon the complaint, the court gave judgment dismissing the action, from which judgment plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Sinclair, Waugh & Payne, and Strudwiclc, Peters & Gollins, for appellants.
    
      Ronald & Piles, for appellees.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Durbar, J.

It appears from the complaint in this case that the plaintiffs were not parties interested in the estate. No one else has a right to object to a confirmation of sale. This being true, the complaint did not state facts to constitute a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly sustained. Other questions were raised in the case, but as the judgment of this court sustaining the demurrer on this point disposes of the case, it is not necessary to enter into their discussion.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs.

ÁNDers, 0. J., and Hoyt, Stiles and Scott, JJ., concur.