The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-16

f fNN NN iN HNNMN VT fHM
'hf mlf M ihai W. HpuH fhs Hiigim
Then Glfi i'o fuuW no0 fllF IA
in'lTi ihNi ihf ffpaH wH# ifHa #Hd
llN ihr personal ff'alH VIE If tHfl
Insufficient M Dmg iho deld The
application wai dismissed ang a.
feplnlei me- pfiyof ~ mlf ~ fhs
particular property w Cot1h smnfY,
nimed in fhe citation, and remained
IN court hf all o'hof purposes
The subsequent proceedings instI
iuied N iuhe term. 1875, sol tan
mmmtlod Wv ihc final derfae ai
August iefm. following. do not tss|
pfe.sly rcfef ~ M conneei themselves
eiih ilio forncr proceedings IN 1911
Thcy contain ~ allusion to the orig
nal petition, nud ~ noi prufess io h.
based upon ", bul ~ ihe contrary
purpnr 10 w. distinct and indrpond
cnt " w.
II u necessary a. anticipate The
question whether, aflcr the dismissal
~ the first application, - 10 the land
embraced IN II The same land would
have been subjected 10 Il decree of
sale on The subsequent application
The objections made by The admins.
TRAITOR Of Reynolds, may have been
conclusive, or otherwise, III their
character, What they we're does not
appear They may have been mther
In abatement than In bar, and IL the
lattcr, il might be doubtful whether
any persons but the Representatives
of Reynolds could plead the dismissal
as final. We express no opinion on
these points, nor on the question
whether the dismissal of one nppll-
cation for the sale oi real estate for
the payment Of debts, will under all
circumstances bar u second applica-
ton for the same purposes. The
view we have taken disposcs of the
objection raised IN the argument on
the ground of res judicdtd, and shows
that the doctrine of the conclusive
ness Of the dccrces OF the Probate
court, and of the want of power to
set them aside after the term, is not
involved In this case. But the qucs-
ton remains whether the order of
sale was based upon proceedings suf-
fcicnt to give the court jurisdiction
10 pronounce il.
All that appears is the order made
at June term, 1913, directing to issu-
ancc Of citation, and the decree made
at August term, 1913, ordering the
sale. These are remarkably full,
complete and technical. There was
however, no written petition or APP
plication filed, nor was there any re-
port, under oath, Of the debts MS as
sets, showing the necessity for such
sale. Both these points appear to be
fully covered by the decision in FL
bridge VS.. McMackin, 81 Miss, ~.
No petition in writing was required
by the statute under which this order
was made, Hutch. code, G6G, sec. 9S)
and though an account Of the per-
sonal estate and debts is required to
bc made aud exhibited on oath, il is
, decided in the case just quoted, that
It's omission does not affect the juris-
diction Of the court so as to make
void n decree Of sale pronounced
without such account having been
exhibited. But in the present case,
, the former report Of this admins
+ traitor, presented at April term, 1871,
representing the insuiliciency of the
personal estate, and the judgment Of
| the court then given In aifirmance Of
, It's truth, were Of record, and render
, ed any further representation by the
= administrator on that subject alto
, gcthcr supcrilous aud unnecessary.
, Indeed il now appears, though the
Probate court was probably not
! aware Of il at the time, that as far
! back as 1889 the estate had been
! regularly reported aud declared 10 be
= insolycnt during the administrator
s ship Of Mrs. Learned.
Z 3. But if the court had jurisdiction
! to make the order of sale, il Is in
/; sisted That the proceedings under Il
!, are imperative to divcst the title Of
4 the plaintiffs, because thc1ale was moi
: reported TO, and confirmed by The
] court.
] The sale was made on the thir.
c iccnth day Of May, 1874, and no re.
$ port was made until the seventeenth
: day Of November, lsl7. At the lat
0 ter date formal report, not, how.
y ever, under oath, was made out, ant
Il filed with the Clerk Of the Probat'
!, court Of Copiah county, the court no
b being in session, and no action up
c pears ever to have been taken upor
4 Z.
s The statute under which the sal
was made, (IIutch. code, 667 } pro
Is vidcs that "thc executor or admins
If traitor making such sale, shall max
, report, in writing, Of all the proceed
d ings thereon, to the next Orphan
n court after such sale" but there
: no express requirement that th
J, court shall confirm the report. Tn
d question a. to the necessity Of suel
q. confirmation has, however, frequent,
= been before this court, and we regan
,e il as settled, that a sale Of land, un
le der a decree Of the Probate court,
D. not operative 10 pass the title TO tn
re purchaser, until the sale has bee
ID reported and confirmed.
ID In the case Of Smith W.. Dcnson
" 3, s. a NJ. 32s, the appellant file
AZ his petition In the Probate court, j
X 1912, 10 set aside a purchase Of Ian
made by him at administrators sal
A. in 1888, alleging various Irregular
r. ties in the proceeding, and statin