Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-03-09

4 AalA anu AiAE BlbtCNAlikb III ACdSDildDAE CtA
formity toslaE. The decree binds an infant
and he cannot impeaoh or open it. Mill;
rs. Dennis 3 Johns Oh. R 368.
In this case the original bill appeared 10
be basedupon three distinct grounds of equi-
table Jurisdiction. Ist, The act of Assembly
authorizing an administrator in default OF
| personal assets 10 resort to the real estate
to pay debts I'd, The act of 1927, ch. 54,
! empowering Court of Equity, in such
cases as are manifestly to the interest Of
the heirs or personal representatives, to sell
! the real estate descended to the heirs, and
! Sd, The general power of Court of Chan
cery over trust estates. The jurisdiction OF
! the conrt in this case over the subject mat
| ter ofthe litigation is not questioned. nor
indeed can it be, and the principal qnestion
/ for our determination is, whether the pro-
| eeedings in the Chancery Court are suf-
6ciently regular and formal 20 protect
bona fde purchasers under IT, No prin-
ciple Is better settled in our law, wherever
4 Court Of Chancery or other court Of
general jurisdiction possesses jurisdiction of
the subject matter of litigation, and has ac-
quired jurisdiction Of the parties, as tothird
persons interested under its judgments and
DEGREES, its proceedings cannot be held to be
void, after the final disposition of cause,
and in this respect, it is not material
whether the jurisdiction be inherent or
statutory, provided the statute be Of gen
eral and public nature. Winchester as.
Winchester, ] Head 500. Greenlaw as.
Kirnahaw, 4 Sneed 371-379. Hooper as.
Fisher, 2 Head 253. Britton as. Cowan, 5
Hum. 3l9, Kilcrease as. Blythe, Hum.
37S Elrod as. Lancaster, Head $40.
Voorhees, rs. The Bank of the United
States, 10 Peters Rpt. 472.
But admitting the principles of these
cases, and the presumption that crises in
favOrof proceedings OfcOurts ofsuperior and
general jurisdiction, it is insisted, that in
this case, the court, when the former de-
cree was pronounced, had no legal iurisdic-
ton Of the person of the complainant. The
ground of this objection is vested on the
fact, that he is a minor, and as such, was
joined as a complainant, and not made a
defendant in the former suit Is this such
an error or irregularity as will render the
decree void, and defeat the rights of bona
fde purchasers under it? We think not
All the lands Of the intestate, at his death,
we're under trusts, and liable to be sold at
any time by the trustees. The estate was
otherwise involved, and the original bill
seems to have been filed to disencumber it,
to pay off the debts, and protect the interest
Of the infant complainant. The facts ofthe
case seem to have justified, in an eminent
degree, the interPosition of a Court Of
Chancery; and, although we are free to
admit, it would have been more in har-
mOny with our practice to have made the
I'D, lofo,,lo,,t 4. r
thOriZed to say that there was such 4 want
Of jurisdiction of the person as to render
the decree void as against bona fde pur-
chasers under it. Lord Langdale, in
the case of Stanton rs. Bartholomew,
Beav. IA, cited in lst. Dau. Ch. Pr, 80,
said the "court exercises a very careful dis
cretion, on the one hand, in order to
facilitate the proper exercise of the
right which is given TO all persons to file
bill on behalf Of infants and on the
other to prevent any abuse of that right,
and any wanton expense TO the prejudice
Of infants" Courts of equity are the
proper guardians of infants whenever their
rights are involved before them, and they
are bound to protect their interests, whether
they appear by their guardians as defend
ants, or their next friend as complainants.
No decree can safely be obtained against an
infant upon the mere fact of taking the bill
pro coHtesso, or upon an answer in form by
the guardian dd hten. The decree in such
case must rest upon proof, either in court
or before the master 1t is the proof
in which all cases affecting infants should
be specific and satisfactory, that confers
upon the court jurisdiction to bind them by
its deorees.-3 John, Ch. r. 36S; David
son rs. Brawder, Sneed, l29.
As a defendant, an infant in a suit i'm
equity may possess advantages which he
does not enjoy as a complainant, and under
cur statutes and decisions it is certainly
always proper to give him the advantage
of that attitude; and it may be error, on
an appeal or writ of error not to do So
Davidson gs Brawder, cited above. But
in either case, whether the infant is before
the court as complainant as merit friend. or
as defendant by his guardian, it is the duty
of the court 10 see that the nert friend or
guardian do his duty and on failure to do
so, or for other sufficient cause made out,
the court will remove him Dan'l, Ch.
Pr. 205
Inthiscase no fraud or collision is charged
upon the aeTf friend, or commissioner, who
conducted the sase, and we do not feel
authorized to say the purchasers are to be
held answerable merely because the infant
was before the oOnrt as a complainant, and
that their titles under the decree are in
valid. Lloyd rs Jones, 9 Vesey, 37-65. |
Also Davidson as. Brawder, 5 Sneed 129.
Elrod rs. Lancaster, Head 27l.
1t is further assigned, in argument, "a
error, that the irregularities in the execu-
tiOn of the decree, by the commissioner |
are fatally defective. The ground, it is in |
sisted, upon which the decree is predicated |
was that the land was to be sold in a par |
ticular order, which was not observed in |
the sale. How far departure by the com |
missioner from the order of sale, prescribed |
in the decree, under proper exceptions to |
the confirmation to the report of sale, |
would affect the validity of the decree in a |
court Of error, we need not now de- |
termine; but in a contest after the |
final disposition Of the cause in which |
the rights of bona fde purchasers are |
involved, it certainly cannot. after confir- |
nation, and in the absence Of all fraud and |
be held 10 render the decree |
void, and the sales under it invalid. The /
sale was under the decree of the court, and !
iltt uN Virtue VI the tTuSlS, anu lile puTCua- 1
sers had n right to presume every thing to |
have been legally done. In the case of |
Lloyd Is. Jones, above cited, Chancellor |
Kent, ie the case Of Denning rs. Smith, 5 |
J ohm, Ch r, 332, in commenting on it, |
says: Lord Eldon seems to have been of |
opinion that mere Irregularities, without |
making ont case offraud or collusion ofsome |
sort or other in the purchaser, was not suf- |
iicient 70 affect him" The same doctrine
was recognized by Lord Redesdale in Bur
net JS. Hsmell, II Sch. and LEI. 5GS, aud |
it has been repeated by our own court in /
the case of Winchester rs. Winchester, l /
Head 50l-j02.
In this case there Is not the slightest |
fraud or collusion imputed in the bill to
the purchasers. They appear to have /
aotel in gooi faith, and without any
knowledge of irregularities in the sale
Nor is there any fraud or collision
charged on the commissioner, and under
the facts Of this case, none, we apprehend, |
could have been successfully alleged
Although he did not sell the particular
land indicated in the decree directing the /
sale, he nevertheless took the precau-
lion to return a plat of the lands sold /