Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-10-01
COURT OF APPEALS.
DECISIONS EsTERDAY--SYLLABUs OF
DECISIONS LAST WEEK.

frmed, Judge Christian delivering. the
opinion, Judge Anderson dissenting
Sipe rs. Earnaa1,, from the Circuit Court
of Rockingham. Affirmed on the merits
remanded for an account of the trust sub
ject to see if appellant had any interest
therein. Anderson delivering the opinion.
Stuitzer Us. Switzer, from the Circuit
Court Of Augusta. Decree affirmed. Judge
Staples delivering the opinion.
Red's Admir- Us. Trotter, from the Circuit
Court of Frederick County. Reversed
Judge Moncure delivering the opinion.
Ecdas Us. PettAjohn, from the Circuit
firmed Judge Christian delivering the
opinion.
Cram rs. Plecker, from the Circuit Court
of Rockingham. Judgement reversed
Judge Anderson delivering the opinion.
Meade rs. Grigsby, from the Circuit
Court of Warren. Judgment reversed
Judge Staples delivering the opinion.
SALE OF INFANTS LANDs-RIGHTs OF
PURCHASERS.
Zirkle as. McCue, from Cir. CT. of Aug
Co.-This was a suit brought by a widow,
who was also the guardian of the appellee,
then an infant, for an assignment of her
dover and partition of the lands of her
auooeenu. AloHouSH DIG ull noo
the bill she alleged that she was
guardian, and in the proceedings
Aslgned paper asking the Court to approve
the sale made as for the best interest of
her ward, in which the adult heirs concur
red. The purchaser had paid all his pur-
chase money, which had persisted, and the
infant filed a bill of review asking to have
his part Of the land set aside, which the
Court below did.
Court held this bill was not one by a
guardian for the sale OF wards real estate,
but was for the assignment OF dover to the
WIDOW, and PARTITION OF sale OF the realty,
as might be most conducive 10 the interests
OF all parties
The record contained the report Q Acom-
missioners that the land could not be con-
venlently divided; statement OF all the
would be promoted by q sale; the written
request OF the SIX adult heirs, and the
mother and guardian OF the infants, that
the sale might be confirmed; the opinion
OF the presiding Judge that the land had
been sold at fair price, IN favor OF the
sale, and nothing against it except the en-
tire loss OF the infants share OF the pur-
chase money.
The proprlety OF sale must be tested.
and It's validity determined by the clrcum-
stances then existing and surrounding
the parties, That purchaser could not be
affected by the perlshlng OF the fund In this
way, any more Than II 1T had persisted by
the insolvency OF guardian or breaking OF
bank in which it was deposited.
Inc only matter Tor inquiry is: Did the
court nave Jurlsolctlon OF the SUBJECT mai
Ter! were the proper parties before It,!
were the proceedings regular! was Che
sale proper under all the circumstances
9hen surrounding the parties! Ii SO, there
Is no pretehce Ior interfering Win Ine
Title OF an innocent purchaser, because IN
the light OF subsequent occurrences the
sale mas proved 1nJudlclous and unfortu-
naIe for the interests OF the infant.
reversing the Court below. Judge
staples delivered the OPINION.
e p asIo. 20 = o@' ri, ION & Coui
an infant under the 7th see ch " g.
1873. The Court held that # was a snit
for partition and that in the original suit
it appeared that partition in kind was i'm.
practicable that fine nronertv was GOING
to ruin that the interests of all parties
and particularly the infant would be pro-
noted by a sale and that the price agreed
on bv the PARTIES in their contract Which
was subject to the ratification of the Cont
DGlOW ana WAS r9f1tJnH 9dpOn1fp and
sale shouId not be set aside. That altho,
an infant had his dav in Cont tn set . side
a decree, that he was as much bound there
oy as an adult, ana the Court would only
that where the Court had iurisdiction to
decree the sale all the proner and neces-
sarv parties were before Fl: the proceed
mos were re0uIar and fhe sale was nroner
under the circumstances surrounding if at
the time it was made. f would NOT he dis
turbed. altho' viewed in the iipht of sub-
sequent events it NAV have been iniudi-
cious or ruinons to the infant. .,ndge
Christian delivered the opinion affirming
Court below.
Lam ct al rs Rn,beq,s ndr,,. Annea1
from Circnit Cont of Pockinoham Annea1
dismissed as imnrovidentlv awarded 9'''-
-,,,,r,.is
NECESSARY fAhliho.
Onaohuadro as. Henson, from the Circuit
Court OF Albemarle County. The question
III TINS case was whether the obllgee IN a
bond, secured by a deed of trust, which
had been assigned, and a judgment OBJ
ta!li5l UIioiooil, wfS NECESSARY paiuy 10 d
tha deht and Vas i s sanin u p't w
the lien OF said Judgment.
The Court held he was not necessary
party, affirming the decree of the Court
below, Judge Anderson delivering the
opinion.
WHOSE SHALL BE THE LOSS !: GUARDIAN
Cd w,pn2
y" "A"D
Ergenb1igM Us. A1nmon. from the Circuit
Court of Rockingham In this case there
had been executed by one, Miller, bond
to Ammon as guardian for Ergenbright's
children, which was afterwards renewed
with Kite as surety Upon the obligors
becoming insolvent, the Court below sad
died the loss on the wards. and not on the
guardians estate. 1t was doubtful wheth-
er the guardian had not regarded it and