The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-05-25

III. second ...or Isl zncd - 70 tx granting Of The
irstructog- in Ornalf of the plaintiff which are "a
/. m, ii Tie Jury I.acva from the evidence TIM,
IT, note -rc1 pa Fq- given ~ the defendants for the
turcba~r Yuput, 81 -ayr sold by plaintiff admin
iztTatr q li"nH- H. FIl-fy dSr e1'"i unoar an or
ar III the rfontt" court regulars rnsde and puf.
q. a-ei hy jefsudnut u-an TINT said sale made
g"Ht iail-liit l..r !"5-1e7s-"4 q SUD ~Rve ~ss
r1r .,s -ed los the pntii. and ihst toEnn retained
Uninterrupted ara nugi 7pHied Ics-es-.oH OF said
slave anti tcr deai u-th"n or ne purpose Of this
tci tia rt-aUtp tja Of sad =ieve j. fnTnae-sl and
ifno o.hc5 defence appears they must hnd fer ths
an administration Is the act Ct sale under an or
dr. If court uf competent jurisdiction. duly made
Df trtrgrtv "a bis possession e. administrator doe,
nt ,AarIv warrant the title. The -oundness tho
tu z. III, $40 ii tho .lare Nancy ly The risintisf
~ oar1 IIs,rator. 80 toEan, made good faith
a4fi rndcr competent authority, and accomba-
r,d hg delivery. mud was followed By the. uninter-
C,at M 10 the tine al the death Of the slave then
rar4lnount outstanding title 10 the slave il such b.
/ iiroycd. j. 40 defence TO this action SC.
/ The principle las been frequently sanctioned Is
tins court that ndnininstraior selling property
! ~ The authority # order q the Probate Courf
sells nnly such title aS Was N h~ intFstate, and tho
r,rr.Lo,ef ial,rl tie t.tie his riSk,-Melen ~
ionruan, Il > VI Joe. And accordingly it il Weil
-tod her" that The rule c9rodf onfoT Is applicable
| N,h great sfrictnr-3 20 all such saleg-Joslen -
| CsugLIp and A. 96 Miss. ia hutehins and al. vs.
BROOKS d. AGO. George vs. Bean, ~ ID. Ia. II fol-
l,,s ts. the purchaser At such sale purchases NJ
H. peril - purchaser at sheriff sale aud that he
cannot be discharged from his contract because OF
1 the defective ut.e 81 ID" .ntestaic.
Th- rule may seem % operate as hardship upon
such purchases But they have the same means ~
roattipg fcrl-clvr- - purchasers at Sherfffs and
other judicial sales by an examination into the title
afre the purchase Ii they fail to do So thev aro
no more eattcd D. discharged from the contract
-. .l,o ~. 49, ,vouli Ia ls,t thc w "
their own neglect. ON the other hand, IL the mere
defect Of title were allowed to tnvAldata such sales.
! delay and confusion ia the settlement Of estates
would most probably. If not necessarily. be the re-
suit 1t would open the door 70 unjust and unauthor.
lied conduct tho part 81 the administrators in
yoying estates n litigation and complication attend
| ri win delays ana expense ana would therefore
tend 10 interrupt the due and faithful administration
If estates, It. ccctS would be highly prejudcial l.,
the public good and We therefore think the rule held
ny this Court. founded on good reasons.
The principle of the instructions here complained
"i j. in accordance with ihis view, and the Obeeton
/ taken IT, not tenahlr.
Tie last ground Of error is that the verdict is con.
rsTy the law and the evidence, and il is insisted
that the evidence shows that the sale cancelled
by agreement Of the Plaintiff and under the rule upon
that point stated in the second instruction in behalf
Of the defendants, that the verdict should clearly
| have been for them.
The Court instructed the jury in effect that if tn
plaintiff agreed to cancel the sale, and il was cancel
ed, the note thereby discharged. Cnncedinp tbis
Instruction to be proper, does the evidence clearly
Itappears that the plaintiff in the summer of 1854
told Allen that he had sold the slaves by mistake and
that they did not belong 20 Frsbys estate. and that
neither Allen nor Cogan got any title by their pur
chascrs, and that the plaintiff gave Allen 10 under
stand that Cogn had agreed TO give back the slave he
The evidence shows that the plaintiff did cancel ths
account Of the defective title. here up as a de
fence. But It does not appear that the sale Of
one, for which the note sued in this case was Civ
: | en was cancelled. And the circumstances would an
| pear to show the contrary. The note gives
: up, and Ccggn retained possession Of the slave
These facts 20 show that the contract as to hi
slave was not rcseinfed, and they eIplaihe,
! | by evidence.
The cancellation Of the sale 10 the other slaves
= winch il would appear in the summer Of 1854
leaving the note given for the price Of the slave in
volved IN this outstanding and the fact that tn
slave renamed in the possession Of Cogan. after tn
. alleged mediation. without explanation is stron
n evidence 20 show that cancellation took place as
the slave for which this given, and iustif
o "a coming 10 the conclusion that the sale TO thi
slave was not intended TO he cancelled and the ci
40 funSiances would have warranted the Jury belle,
tng the declarations Of tue plaintiff with regard
~ The cancellation had reference 70 the slaves whes
~ safe Wa really cancelled by the plaintiff or il n
at slave was referred 20, that the cancellation was Rev
"a effected. We would not, therefore, he warranted
a., holding that the jury found clearly against the E,
aencc IN coming to the conclusion that the sale
TO the slave for which this note Was gwen vas "a
~ eeled. and this ground Il error is not sustained
- IL follows from these views Of the case that alb
j. the record Of the deed offered by the defendants M
- improperly rejected yet upon the whole case no OF
~ iudlce in law due to them in CONSEQUENCE OF II
~ ruling Of the Court and that If 1t had been receiy
= IN evidence il could not have changed the result
- the case, and hence the judgment must be affirmed
- HASDT