The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-04-14
] ELISA McLEuoEE, Er Al, }

Il sr.L.&N. @. X. Il. Co. }
ogeai from the Circuit Court Of Yalo
i'll Ia County, Hon. !. w. e. Watson,
g.
In 1861, j. 7 Goode obtained decree in
ii Chancery Courtof said county, appoint
q comm siyner 10 convey TO him all the
id crest Of the widow and children Of > B..
4I.emora deceased, in certain land, and
6e conveyance was made. BY successive
b. vegauce-. the Chicago, st. L., K y. o..
" r. Co. became vested with the title Of
bod.
b. 1879. She widow and children Of >. B.
1eLemore filed "a bill in said Chancery
ihllrt against Goode and the other parties
athe former chancery suit, to review and
nc The final decree and the commission
II decd obtained by Goode in 1861
surof the children are described as minors,
Il fl WIS ayerred that all the children
a. under age ut the time the decree in
il or of Gooie was rendered. The facts
lI1Iged iu Goodies bin were negatiyed, and
5Bnplaiut- charged that they had never
Il "a properly notified Of that suit. A de
Il was rendered in favor Of complainants.
u railroad company was not party to this
hcceding
afterwards the said widow and children
fought this action Of ejeclment to recover
i the railroad company possession Of the
bld.
Defendant relied upon the decree Of 1867
favor of Goode and the conyeyances
iereauder Plaintiffs sought to overturn
d. by Offering in evidence the subsequent
baucery proceeding brought by them to
nuuI the first decree. This evidence was
scluied and judgment was entered for
eienIaut, from which plaintiffs appealed.
AWEELL, j.
I'D
h The aImissibility in evidence of the
ecree rendered in 1879, on which title Of
eieuiants rests. depends on the question
hether the defendant as the holder of the
H. % tlc land IN the manner stated, was
Included bv the decree of 1879, not having
sen "a party thereto. This question in
II Yves u consideration Of the nature and
&C. oil decree "ior the sale and convey
h. 81 tho real estate OF an infant" in those
s. iu which hy Art. u, page BOB, Code
1851, q saving was made, and the position
1d rights of holder OF real estate under
ich sale or conveyance when made and the
|Dde iu which an infant may assail such a
scree DEGREES against infants are liable
assailmsut by them at any time within
rec years after they attain the age of
reutv-one years. The party interested in
incudiug the infant defendant at an
hitler dav. may. within six months after
Il attainment of his majority, summon
b. to appear and show cause against the
scree. or serve him with a copy of it. I'm
4 the decree is binding on the infant 1t
hv be assaulted by him and cause shown
kain.t 1t. The complainant and all holding
eder him holds subject 10 the contingent
saracter OF the decree, and liable to have
bUd cause shown to the contrary by the
Iflut defendant, according to the saving in
i favor i'm the statute.
Il. A more difficult question is whether
j. who holds the real estate under a sale
Ede biz virtue Of a decree for its sale Is en-
He'd TO be made party to the proceeding
an infant defendant 10 show to the court
.use To the contrary of such decree. The I
atute cited WAS intended as a substitute |.
b tue rule in Chaueerv Courts to insert III Z
heroes affecting the inheritance of infant I
Afeudeuts, a saving, viz: And this decree /
It. DE binding Oh the dotendents, unless
being served with subpoena, they shall /
sthin six months after they attain their /
hjortv, show unto the court good cause /
the contrary.
III the infant defendant j. dissatisfied with I
L. defence made for him and desires to I
bike new one, he must in general, wait /
htil lac attaius his majority before he (
pplies but upon special circumstances, I
l0wu. he might obtain leave to make a .
Nv defence during his infancy, and in such .
ease. i'm order 10 bind him by the decree .
be made. he will be treated as Il plaintiff, /
od will be bound accordingly, without a 4
ght 20 show cause against the second decree |
ut if lac seeks to impeach a decree on the \
found of fraud, collision or error, he need .
)t await the attainment OF his majority, /
lt may proceed 10y original bill, saying 1
lly that the decree was obtained by fraud I
hi collision.
such were the rights of infant defendants /
chaucery. for which the saving in the /
atute is a substitute But he cannot show .
luse except in some regular proceeding .
lapted 10 the nature of the case ; and when 4
decree has been made for the sale of the /
al estate of an infant in those cases where 4
ecree, and sale is made under it, and the
lfant proceeds to impeach it, he must make {
party TO his proceeding him who holds the
sal estate under the decree. 1t is prima>
Il rule rs 70 parties that one interested in
liz subject matter and the object of the
Hid is necessary party defendant.
I'VE think il Is clear that the decree made
the bill of the widow and children of
eLemore was not decisive of the rights of
PENDANT in this action, who was not made
barty to that suit; that as to this defend
lid, that decree is res inter aiios Getd, and it
IL properly excluded as evidence in this
Eion. Judgment affirmed
Williams 4 Fly and FitzGerald Il Whit
ia, for appellants.
". 2. Harris, c9Htra
To be reported.
"a - -tN,-f xrTn nF