Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-29

case, unless ID has Jurisdiction OF the subject
matter. and also Of the person Of the defendant.
This prineiple is alike applicable 70 this as
well as TO all others But was Sarah f. Blair q
necessary party in the case Of Short 4 Co. Us.
Peaeher et ei.2 We think most clearly not. That
was a bill brought by creditors seeking to set
aside the trust from Peacher 70 Kisee. on the
grounds of fraud, OF TO secure asale0f the pre-
! perry conveyed and to subject TIL surplus which
might remain after satisfying the trust debts, to
the payment Of the compiainants demand. The
deed conveyed very large amount Of real and
personal property. besides portion of the land
in dispute. part having been previously sold
Oh. n less than forfy-seven slaves, with al the
bargainor's stock. horses. mules. cattle. shesp.
hogs and farming implements of every kind and
description, were included in the deed. Peacher
was the debtor. and the Compliments sought 10
subject this property or the surplus TO the salts
faction Of their debts. which were net included
in the trust; and clearly no court would hold
that they had not right to do SO. No decree
was sought against either Haynes and his wife,
OF Sarah e. Blair. and their rights remained I'M
affected By it. True they had a legal interest in
portion of the land sold, which they could
assert as readily after the rendition ofthe decree
confirming the sale as before.
The doctrine insisted on for the defense. and
found in the cases of Frazier d TnI0s, execu-
tors. etc, "a. Pankey e al, Swan. IS, and Da-
wilson ct al Us. Bowden 81 at., Sneed, l29, has
no application 10 this case, either in view OF
our own statutory regulations upon the subject,
or inherent jurisdiction Of court of equity.
Tfssich were the application, the doctrine of the
above recited cases, with many others of the
same class. would be applicable, and Q sale OF
an ihfant's real estate. without proper iurisdic-
ton OF the person, would be void.
The sale not being, as insisted, utterly void. it
iseapable Of confirmation. and the next question
islWill the court confirm il as to the minor, Sarah
+. Blair, and compel the devisees of the pur-
chaser. Drane TO take the sitter acquired title Of
Haynes end wife.
The established rule Of law is, that if q party
fraudulently convey land to which he has no
title, the yendee who comes into court Of chan
Gerry to reseind the contract will not be com
PEELED to to take an after acquired title Woods
gs. North johnson, 6 Hum. 300. BlakmOre o.
Shelby, Hum. 430.
Then we think there is no fraud, either in fact
or in law. The commissioners sale was public
and conducted under orders of the court and
confirmed without objection. The fact that the
title from the ElliOtts and Blair to Peacher was
defective, does not appear to have been known
10 Preacher when be conveyed in trust to Kisee
nor does it appear that IL was known TO any of
the parties to the suit OK Short Co. Os. Peacher
ef Of, in which the decree of sale was made.
How then could this fact be held as a fraud upon
the purchaser 1t is wholly different from the
case of Wood North IL johnson; there the
sale was By the executor. without anything in
the viii from which he could infer that he had
any power to sell, and IL was held the false
representation of the executor in assuming to
sell without authority under the will. had the
effect to deceive the bidder. and he was re-
heved of his purchase. No deception was
practiced by any one ia the conduct of the sale
under consideration, and Haynes and wife's
title is now rendered, and we think the pur-
chaser. under well established principles Of
this court, is bound TO accept it. Blackman
Braman, 5 Hum. 439; Frost Us. Braman 6 Yer,
So, are authorities cited.
As to the remaining question whether the
court will adopt and rectify the sale as to the
defendant, Sarah Z. Blair. and thereby COM
plete the title in the purchasers devisees. there
is one prevailing rule running through all of
our reports, and that is, that the courts will not
set aside for Irregularities merely, the sale of
an infants estate when il is advantageous to the
infant. In the case of Blackman ct al. ca porte,
Head. SIS, this court went further. and upon
the same principles adopted private sale made
by next friend without any decree
authorizing him TO sell. The proof in this case
is Overwhelming. That it is greatly to the in
terest of the minor that the sale should be
adopted for her benefit, and her testamentary
guardian is before the court insisting on il, and
in view of all the facts, we are unable to see any
valid reason why il should not be done.
Itworks no injury to the purchaser, for there
by he gets good title to the same land, he
supposed he was buying when he bid il of, and
the same price at which he agreed to accept it.
The fact that the land has since deprecated in
value, and the Interest accumulated on his debt,
are his misfortunes and not the fault Of the
minor.
The decree OF the Chancellor must be con-
iirmed. and the cause remanded.
MILLIGAN, Judge