The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-03-12

were minors, and that they had no suill
cient notice of the suit, and they praye,
process against Goodc, complainant in frs
suit, and the widow and children of Trap
and the children of Carr, and for n deere,
to ''review and cancel the final decree ant
commissioners deed" obtained by G0Odc
A decree was rendered in accordance with
this prayer. A few days after the commits.
sioner's conveyance to GoOde, in 1867, he
conveyed the land to the Water Valley
Manufacturing Co., and the latter, in 1866,
conveyed it to the Mississippi Central Rail-
road Co., which conveyed to defendant.
Williams a. Fly and Fitzgerald a. Whit
field for Appellants.
W.P. Harris for Appellee.
CAMPBELL, j.,
led
The admissibilIty in evidence of the de-
cree rendered in 1879, on which title of de-
PENDANTS rests, depends on the question,
whether the defendant. us the holder of
the title to the land in the manner stated,
was concluded by the decree of 1879, not
having been party thereto. This ques-
ton involves consideration of the nature
and effect Of decree ''for the sale and con-
veyance of the real estate of an infant" i'm
those cases in which by Art. 81, page 555,
Code of 1857, saving was made, and the
position and rights OF II holder of real es-
tate under such sale or conveyance when
made and the mode in which an infant
may assail such decree. DEGREES against
infants are liable to assailment by them at
any time within three years after they at
tain the age of twenty-one years. The
party interested in concluding the infant
defendant ut an earlier day, may, within
six months after the attainment of his ma
jority, summon him to appear and show
cause against the decree, or serve him with
a copy of it. Until the decree is binding
on the infant it may be assailed by him and
cause shown against 1t. The complainant
and all holding under him holds subject to
the contingent character Of the decree, and
liable to have good cause shown to the
contrary by the infant defendant, accord
ing to the saving in mis- favor in the statute.
A more difficult question is whether one
who holds the real estate under sale
made by virtue of decree for its sale Is
entitled to be made party to the prosecut.
ing by an infant defendant to show to the
court cause to the contrary of such decree.
The statute cited was intended as a sub
stitute for the rule in Chancery Courts to
insert in DEGREES affecting the Inheritance
of infant defendants saving, viz: "And
this decree is to be binding on the defend
ents, unless on being served with subpoena,
they shall, within months after they at
tain their majority, show unto the court
good cause to the contrary"
If the infant defendant is dissatisfied
with the defence made for him and desires
to make new one, he must in general,
wait until he attains his majority before he
applies, but upon special circumstances,
shown, he might obtain leave to make
new de ence during his infancy, and in
such case, in order to bind him by the
decree to be made, he will be treated as
plaintiff, and will be bound accordingly,
without right to show cause against the
second decree. But If he sought to i'm
peach decree on the ground OF fraud, COL
lusiOa, or error, he need not await the at
tainment of his majority, but might pro-
coed by original bill, saying only that the
decree was obtained by fraud and col
fusion.
Such were the rights of infant defend |
ants in Chancery, for which the saving in |
the statute is substitute. But he cannot |
show cause except in some regular pro- |
ceeding adapted to the nature of the case I; |
and when a decree has been made for the |
sale of the real estate Of an infant in those |
cases where he has right to show cause |
against the decree, and a sale is made |
under it, and the infant proceeds to i'm
peach it, he must make party 10 his pro-
ceeding him who holds the real estate
under the decree. 1t is primary rule as
to parties that one interested in the SUBJ
ject matter and the object Of the suit is Il
necessary party defendant.
We think it is clear that the decree made
on the bill of the widow and children Of
McLemorc was not decisive Of the rights Of
defendant in this action, who was not made
a party to that suit that rs to this defend
ant that decree is res inter dliOs acta, and
1t was properly excluded as evidence in this
action. Judgment affirmed.
ITO be reDOrted1