Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-03-06
CLASS II.
Helen Pope VS.. Sam ueI Hodgson. Walter
Drane J. p. Y. Whitfield ct. ais.


Helen Pope VS.. Sam ueI Hodgson. Walter
Drane ]. p. Y. Whitfield et ais.
In these causes, as already stated
the cOmplainants are identical with
those who prefer the bills against
Couts ct ais. and Harrison ct ais
But the rights of the parties depend
upon other and different questions.
In these cases the complainants
charge that G.. ID. Mclean, the
guardian of Maria and Marcia S.
Mclean, by oral application to the
County court of Pleas & Quarter
Sessions, procured an order of said
court to sell the property of his
wards, which is described in these
several bills. Said DEGREES, three in
number, are set out in the bills, and
transcript containing all of them,
is fled as an exhibit in each case.
They allege that pursuant to said
orders the guardian did sell the re-
atty specifically described in the de-
crees, and executed deeds to the pur-
chasers, which were registered.
That defendants are in possession
by meSne conveyances and claim
ing to beowners in fee simple of said
property. They charge that said
proceedings were void, because
/. The court had no Jurisdiction
in the premises.
2. Because the wards, who were
minors, were not made parties by
service of process.
3. Because the proceedings were
unprecedented, anomalous, and
without authority of law.
They say therefore, that the pur-
chasers and defendants through;
them, only obtained the life estate
of said G. d. Mclean, who was ten
ant by curtesy, that complainants
as the heirs of said minors are enti-
tied to the interest in remainder in
all said property, that Mclean being
still alive they are not entitled s
present possession, but that defend
ants claim to own said property in
fee, binders them in disposing of
their remainder interest by sale or
mortgage and it is a cloud on their
estate. They ask that it be removed
and their right to the estate in re-
mainder be declared and for gener-
al relief.
No objection is taken to the suffi-
cheney of the DEGREES on their face.
They are all set out in the bill and
recite that the said guardian APP
piled for the orders to sell enough
real estate to pay debts and de-
mands VS.. the estate of his wards,
which had come to his notice, that
it satisfactorily appeared to the
court that there were just debts
against the estate, amounting to
about 5000; that the guardian had
notice thereof that sale by the
guardian would be more beneficial
to the wards than a sale by execu-
tion, and that realty would be SUBJ
jected to execution sale unless said
debts were paid, and that said wards
had no personal estate with which
to pay them. Therefore for the pay
ment thereof it was decreed by the
court that said guardian sell certain
Of the real estate, describing it spe-
and prescribing the terms
of sale thereof.
Defendants have demurred to all
said bills, each demurrer raising
the same questions.
By their demurrers defendants in
sist:
/. That notice or service of pro-
cess upon the minors was not re-
4uired by the statute authorizing
the proceedings.
2. That it does not appear from
the record that the application to
The court was by oral application, but |
f it was oral, such an application |
was sufficient, and the court had jul
-isdiction.
3. That the said court was a court |
IF general Jurisdiction, that its iuris-
fiction will be presumed unless the
,ecord shows that It did not have
t. That this IS collateral proceed