The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-11-22

30, which report was confirmed Inc ooA
missioner in fact, did not deliver inc uee'
- cocl,s Proof of that fact being made
the deed was excluded by tho lower court
GEORGE, C.Jp
Held
rrnlass the Court was satisfied that pro-
osas had been duly served on the deiehuo
euts h was bound not only not 10 niaAo
an order appointing the guardian az @eem'
S,,t n was bound also to arrest the proceeo-
IN 40 in the cause until such process w"'
aarvad Hinder such circumstances inc re-
o;,o, in the order must be held to DC tno
solemn adjudication of the Court that pro>
cess had been duly served. ,....;oo.
0 II cannot be said that the adJuaioa>
ton thus made is in opposition 10 Tue "a
cord which contains summons ohiy seiVe"
on person as guardian for these lniah's'
for Notwithstanding this the OourC hioy
have ordered, as it was its duty to DO, al
alias summons which may have peen TO-
turned properly executed, and since theh
| lost from the files.
3. In collateral proceedings such decl-
sion is conclusive of the jurisdiction OF tne
Court Whether the Court had proper
evidence before it on which to base such a
decision cannot be inquired into collaterally'
for that would be a question of error or no
error. which manifestly can be enter
tanned only in Court sitting to review the
proceedings. ,.:. .o
baaed unon the confidence that the officers
of the law-the clerks aud sheriffs as well
as the Judges, will do their duty, and IN
all their official acts conform to truth anu
justice. 4hho,
shown that the plaintiffs were parties TO
that proceeding, and that they were repre-
sented by guardian ad hte'n. Ii they
had rights as heirs of their father winch
thew could have asserted in opposition TO
the enforcement of the vendors lien, IL
should have been asserted in that pros
ceeding.
6. Beyond the rights reserved to infants
by law of proceeding to have DEGREES re !,
viewed within one year after their arrival
at majority, and their exemption from the
operation of the statute of limitations
barring writs of error and appeals they
have no further claims to impeach DEGREES
rendered against them than are accorded to
adults.
7, As to the third objection, in the record
is the recital in the order appointing the
guardian ad Item, that it appeared to
the court that process had been returned
duly served on the infants, II in fact there
was no mother then living, and it SO APP
peared on any part of the record, the SER
vice on the infants would be in all respects
exactly regular and proper. 1t is not neces"
sary that the Sheriff's return should say
ANYTHING about the non existence of guar
dian or parents.
8. AS to the fourth objection, it is insist
ed that as there were minors interested in
the land, that the only jurisdiction to oroer
sale was in the Court of Probates. We
are satisfied with the decision in Wilson VS..
Duncan. "A NJ, GAS, and will, therefore,
follow it.
9. The fifth objection is without force
purchase by an infant is not void but
only voidable. 1t is good till it is affirm
ed by him.
10. As to the last objection, the Court
erred not only in assuming to determine
the question raised as to the delivery of the
deed, instead of leaving it to the Jury,
but also in deciding thst there had been no
delivery. The Commissioner was not the
real vendor of the land. In such sales the
Court is the real vendor, and employs the
Commissioner as its mere instrument IN
concentrating the transaction. The Com
missioner is less than an agent, for his acts
are not binding until they have received the
sanction of the Court after they have been
performed. When he acts he executes the
will of the Court, not his own. He IS the
body, and the Court the animating spirit
which puts him in motion and directs and
gives validity to his acts. He has no rights
III the estate, and parts with none by his
deed. He is appointed by the Court to ex :
ecute its will and effectuate its purposes,
and may be discarded at any stage in the
progress of the transaction, and another
employed in his stead.
II. The deed was to all intents and pur>
poses delivered. Actual manual tradition
of the deed is not necessary to delivery,
even if the grantor is. real and not nominal
A delivery is effected when by words or ac-
lions all intention is indicated that the deed
shall be considered as fully executed.
12 The test as to whether deed has
been sufficiently delivered is the right of the
grantee to have that specific deed put into
his actual possession by whomsoever may
hold it, and not merely to have deed
made in pursuance of pre-existing equity.
Whenever he has this right to specific
deed already drawn up, the deed has been
effectually delivered and the title passed
13. Whether the proof showed delivery
or not, the record of the Court showed 1t,
and the plaintiffs were estopped to deny
that there had been valid delivery.
Judgment reversed.