The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-11-14
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Mrs. ELLEN JOINS, ct IL. }


MRs. ELLEN JOINS, ct IL.
VS..
J.E. SMITH, ct Al.
Appeal from the Chancery Court of
Kinds county, Hon. f. G. Peyton,
Chancellor.
Ia 1873 Modate conveyed certain lands
to Mrs. Ellen Johns in trust for her
children. In 1875 and 1876 these lands
were sold TO the State for taxes. In 1877.
y. E. Smith became the purchaser OF
them from the State. Shortly afterwards
Mrs. Johns and her husband agreed to
repurchase from Smith, for $500; the
rents of the place, then in Smith 5 pos
session, were to 90 towards paying this
sum. and all was to be paid by Deem
Der. 1879. In 1878, 4. Johns filed bill
as prochein ami Of the minors, admitting
that the lands had been legally sold
for taxes and purchased by Smith, and
admitted Smiths title to the lands sub
iect only to the right of redemption by
the minors. The bin further alleges
that the minors are poor and I'M
able to redeem, and prayed that por-
ton of the land be sold TO raise money
to redeem the balance. A demurrer was
interpoeed % this bill and by the Court
below sustained. The case was appealed
TO this court and the decree was reversed,
Johns {. Smith, So Miss. 80. this court
holding 1st, that the court below should
elect for the. minors, having in view
their interest, whether they should re-
deem or comply with the contract made
BY Mrs. Johns and her husband with
Smith, or redeem; Cd, that Smith should,
in addition TO the amount so agreed
upon, or the redemption money, be al
lowed to retain the rents for lS7S-'79,
and he was to be paid for all valuable
improvements. The cause was referred
to a commissioner to state an account,
but he did not report, but by agreement
of the parties something over $1,000 was
decreed a sale of the property. At the
sale Smith and Harper became the pur-
ehasers. In 1882 the minors, by their
next friend, their mother, filed this orig
inal bill in the nature of bill Of review
in which they attack the proceedings
hereinbefore described and 10 vacate the
decree whereby Smith was paid $1,000,
and claiming that Smith obtained no
title by the tax sales, and that no taxes
we're due on the lands when they were
struck off to the State in 1876 and 1877,
and say that they enormously stated In
their first bill that Smith had obtained
good title to this land, and that the
agreement of the parties during the
progress of the first suit, that $1,000 was
due Smith, was not binding upon them.
A demurrer to this bill was sustained
and the compliments appealed to this
court.
Wells & Williamson, for the appel
lants
F. A. R. Wharton and F. f. baldwin,
contra.
CHALMERS, j., He'd
l. Can an infant complainant after
having instituted suit by next friend,
involving realty and obtained decree
in his favor, there being no fraud, col
fusion or mistake, reopen the decree
Quare9
Q The decree sought to be vacated,
and which is in favor of the infants,
gave them the right TO redeem. and
this is all we could now do if we
were to entertain the bill and grant its
prayer.
:. The fact that the amount to be
paid to Smith was agreed upon by the
parties, and confirmed by the court,
without any report of commissioner, to
whom the matter had been referred, was
immaterial.
Affirmed. Ito be reported)