The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-04-01

The nrst objection would prevail against the II
The defendant IL the Alienes of the purchasers who
bought the property at auction In the year from
the executors OF Mr. Clsrk under the WIN OF lS ss
estate, when he died
These sales made without any authority, judi
DIAL or otherwise. They were made after the time
whom by tho law Of Louisiana tho relation OF thu sol
executors had expired Nor it be said that
given to Mr. Relf and Mr. Chew, by Mrs. Clark, the
mother and universal egatee OF the tcststor She could
prescribing the manner for making the sale of
zion. Her OF attorney not OF ITSELF was
it treated by the executors to make for her legal ac
ceptance OF the succession. 1t nethor cypress
taoit acceptance Of the succession casting upon
her tho responsibilities resulting to donec OF success
done by her from which her intention to accept the
succession might have been Inferred which would have
been legal acceptance. But 1t not 20 treated;
til the acceptance made the law required IL to be-
act performed under by the attorney void
This power was also given when the possession OF the
estate lawfully In the executors for the or
enabling them to discharge their functions according to
law II could not invest them with any power either
when their connexon with the estate executors ex
ised or afterwards to sell any part of it, in way not
permitted by tho law.
One or ths EXECUTORS Mr. Rsi rsceiv-d LISTERS tesla
mentary tho Nth August, 1919 The othor, MIR.
Chew, the 2lst January, 1914 Without delay, on
the same day that he received letters Mr. Ref ap.
piled leave sell the moveabls and inmoveabe pro-
perty Of ha testator. Ii WAS granted For reasons
stated In subsequent application he applied for an ex
tension of the order the time for making sale IL
allowed without any alteration of the times for ad
vcrtrng the property he wished to sell as fixed IN the
first order The movable effects to be advertised
ten days The slaves and other immoveable effects,
thirty days The defendant depends upon these orders
purchase mads by his alienor Corresolss the original
purchaser The sale OF thu propTty bought by Cor
ssgoss was made IN lsae Inc time f95 making Hnr
had passed more than six years. The time with
in which the executors could act IS such, by the
law Of Louisiana had expired They had neither
legal delegated authority from the donee OF the
estate recognized such by the law of Louisiana to
mako ths sale It was a sale without Judicial order
sale ia disregard OF sud in violation Of the lsw-one
which the Law Of Louisiana makes absolutely void II
sidered as having been mads under SALE
given by the court 1t is also absolutely void 1t Is
cessary to show In all of forced sales meaning such
as are done by judicial of tho pro-
all the formalities the law strictly complied
WITH or the sale will be aunulIsd -D.losny vs. smith
Lou Rep, AL; Donaldson Hull, s. ll3; Mayfed
vs. Comeaux U. $ 1885; u s., GAG; Lou. Rep 204;
IL Mar. Rep, 6l0, 676 Lou Rap, aas.
Under these decisions and the view which we have
taken this point of the the question notice by
the purchasers and by the defendant from them Of the
illegal and fraudulent sale cannot be denied. The
defendant knew from the titles which no received from
the purchaser Corregoes and from that bought by him
from the other ssnee OF Corregoss that the sales had
been made by Mr.. Ref and Mr.. Chew, in representa-
tive character and 1t his duty to inquire If they
legally filed 1t Not having done he has bought ia
his own and the title by which he claims the pro.
perty must BE- annulled.
We have confined our remarks strictly to the objsc-
ton that these sales made by the donee uDver
sal heir Of the will without addueng other caused found
In tAe proceedings of tho executors OF which this
but too fruitful to show that thu objection has no
the statute of limitations We will only say, that
the atute forcs the time the suit Is brought deter
mnss he right OF the party to sue for claim and that
menoed had not expired. We ought, though, to say,
to future m.spprehsnsion that 1t is not regular
ly in the pleadings Of this
also said that the decres of tho Circuit Court 10
not ANAL in the contemplated by the law to give to
this court appellate jurisdiction. Indeed do not
between the parties. IL embraces the peadings, as
we'll the proofs the cause and directs property
held by the defendant i. forth In the peadngs
90 ns conveyed and surrendere ~ Mrs Gaines Aud it
Is oniy secause the decree as eao)ect co the ooigaon
that the leytme of Mrs Gaines her fathers estate Ia
TO be calculated out of the whole Of 1t, to
tain and preserve dstnet from this controversy the
di.posabe quantum to which the donee il entitled under
the will of 1911 that snail direct il to be reversed
Mrs Gaines, the forced heir of her father In ent
prive her Of einer BY donations intsrpipos or morris
The will Of 1911 is not null account of its
being DONATION sxceeaing the quantum which the
father coad legally dispose Of but only roducble to
that quantum.
To determine the reduction to which the donation in
the will of 1911 Is LIABLE the 10th article Of Title Of
donations inter pipas and morris causa oh. see of
the code of 1903 gives the rule The dsposabls guam
um in this nsaHoe would be OF tbs aggregate
Of the property of the dscedent in Lousiansthe leg
time four fiths. Code Of 1908, az tit n
We shall direct tho decree of the below TO be
versed, and adjudge that decree shall be made in the
said court In this suit declaring that lawful marriage
was contracted in Phlsdepea, Pennsylvania, between
Daniel Clark and Zuline Carrere and that Myra Clark,
Myra Gainee tho lawful and only child of that
marragstbat the said Myrs the forced heir Of her
father and is entitled to fourfths of his estate after
the excessive donation in the will of 1911 Is reduced to
the disposable Quantum which the father could legally
give to others.
That the property described in the answer of tho de-
fendant Mr. Patterson Is part of the estate of Daniel
Clark at the tipe Of his death That it was illegally
sold, by those Who had right authority make
sale Of it. That the titles given by them to the pur
chaser and by the purchaser to the defendant Mr. Pat
terson including those given by the buyer from tn. first
purchaser to Mr. Patterson, null and veid and that
the same IL liable, part OF the estate of Daniel Clark,
to the legitime OF the forced heir aud that tho defend
ant Charles Patterson shall surrender shall
be directed, among other things to be- done in the
premises, will appear in the decree and mandate of
this court to the Circuit Court Ia Louisiana
True copy. Test. VIM THOS. CARROLL,
Clerk Of Supreme Court of s.