The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1883-09-20

be voluntary In voluntary partition pro-
posing to set apart the shares of the minors,
those who have charge of the estates of the
minors have power to act for their wards, un-
der supervision of the court which has the
estates in charge. Whether they act with
due authority to bind their wards, can be
seen by inspecting the record of the court.
If they act with judicial authority, they bind
their wards, otherwise not. Where the re-
cord shows that the matter which the court
considered was within its jurisdiction, and all
necessary parties were before it, there the ac-
ton Of the court. however irregular, is proof
against collateral attack.
But, even admitting that the guardians
acted without authority, the wards on coming
of age were not absolutely obliged to reject
what their guardians did. They had an cleo
ton. Within reasonable time they could af-
firm or disafiirm. If within IA reasonable time
after reaching majority, they did not disatlirm,
they thereby affirmed. In the case before us,
their acquiescence since becoming OF age has
continued for periods varying from eight to
twenty years. Having assented, for SO many
years OF their majority, to both partitions,
they are now forever bound by 10th.
To the second objection, we answer that
parole PARTITION which has been actually con
summated by possession and dominion in
severalty, and which has been confirmed by
long continued acquiescence and by many
changes of title, ought not to be and will not
be disturbed III equity. There are cases hold
ing that it affords legal title in severalty,
even in face of "a statute requiring transfers
OF realty to be in writing or by deed. But we
do not need to go that far
Possession and dominion. initiated by con-
sent have been held adversely under these
partitions for a quarter Of a century. Guar
dams under supposed authority of the proper
supervising court have undertaken to bind
their wards interest. Wards, on becoming Of
age, have affirmed by long acquiescence and
many OF them by express acts, the d9ings Of
their guardians. Estates have passed for full
values into the hands Of purchasers. Costly
improvements have been made in full faith Of
the stability of what has been done The
strongest possible inter-lacing equities now
bind the parties to remain henceiorth forever
fixed in their relative positions.
To the third objection, the familiar princi-
pie applies, that where one has, by bargain
and sale for valuable consideration which he
has actually received and enjoyed, undertaken
to dispose OF a proprietary interest which he
had not at the time, but afterwards acquires,
his acquisition of ii enures to the use of his
Guondda vendee If the action Of the surveyor
general had been such, that these heirs could
never have, each OF them. an undivided tenth
of the west half TO dispose OF, then their Lsl-
tition would have turned out TO be, indeed.
an empty affair. But so it happened that
the award Of the surveyor general to the
preparation for themselves and Partition
among themselves Of lsj6. Their titles have
fallen Just along the lines and into the spaces,
which, for mutual aud valuable consdera-
tions, long ago paid and spent, they had in
telligently and advisedly marked out aud pro
vided. To the meeting Of their own minds it
was only necessary to add the mind of the
surveyor general. In 1874, before their minds
had drawn apart, his was added, and then
therefore, by relation Of his award back to
1856 no one yet dissenting, the partition, SO
far as this aspect of it is concerned became
perfected.
Under these partitions, Grant II. Short
one of the minor children. became invested
with and possessed of share of the west
half, known as Lot No :. which is the land in
controversy. lie held and dealt with this lot
as his until 1865. In that year, while he was
still a minor, his guardian who was one of his
brothers, acting under direction of the pro
bate court, sold it to the appellee, Nicholas
Schoheld, for Seven Hundred and Eighty-tve
dollars, a fair price for it. This sum was ap-
piled, by direction OF the probate court, in
payment of a mortgage debt upon the prem
ises and of other debts proved and allowed
against the minors estate. Next year Grant
ii. Short attained his majority After twe.vs
years of silence, he, in 1873, gives appellants
gran.or quit claim deed of all his right, H.
tie and interest in the Donation Claim. About
the same date the rest of the children gave
To appellants grantor similar deeds as 10
their respective interests Meantime appel
lees have put upon the. premises permanent
Improvements Of great value.
Now, the appellant contends that this last
guardians sale was void, for reasons reduci-
BILE to two: lst, because there was no Ger
tain description Of the property 10 be sold in
the petition for sale; aud 2nd, because no no
tice was given, such as the order of court and
the statute required. True, the proceedings
sa1.a ShA ire tr1Ila hui
were not in our opinion, such open the
decree confirming the sale to collateral at
tack Enough is in the petition To show that
the probate court was asked to act upon a
definite matter within its proper jurisdiction,
In all that ii did from the petition to the de
cree OF confirmation, IL was a court OF record
acting within its proper sphere, and however
erroneous in action and hewever liable to be
reversed on error, il Is entitled to have its
adjudication stand impregnable until so i'm
pugned
But il we regard the judicial proceeding as
invalid, our attention is arrested by the fact
that the ward and all others interested have
let at least twelve years go by without offer
ing TO question II, during eight OF which
wears every one of them had been of full age
Entire though tacit acquiescence for such a
length OF time equivalent To most solemn
express atilrmance. From twenty one To
thirty three years Of age, in full possessl On Of
his faculties, well aware OF all the circum
stances, Grant II. Short has lived along,
without allowing to escape him single init
nation dsapproNlnE the act Oi his guardian
The other children. daring the same space
hut for different periods Of majority have
done likewise, They have thus, every one of
them. thoroughly and forever estopped them
selves from dlsayuving that net.
Ia conclusion. We win say, that in our spiu.
ion, IRE decision OF this whole case NAV be
satisfactorily planted on the doctrine af
estoppel II there be such thing as