The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1898-01-29
vOIDABLE CONTRACTS.
Opinion in Cases of Interest 10
Roanoke Citizens.

The following opinion was handed
down in the supreme court of appeals on
Thursday:
McCianahan &c. VS.. Roanoke lion Co.,
&C.; same vs.. Roanoke Land Co.; same
VS.. New Lansdowne Land Co., etc.
Affirmed. Opinion by Keith, P.
These three cqses were heard together,
and disposed of III one decree, as present.
ing single controversy.
James Mel, Sr., by will dated April
10, 1865, disposed of considerable prop
erty, and by codicl he appoints his son,
Elisha, trustee to receive and hold for
the wife and children of my son, James,
the share of my estate that would be
coming 20 my said son, James, said share
not to ba subject to the debts or contracts
of my said sou, James,"
James had moved to Missouri before
1860, and had not prospered there. In
1869 he wrote his sister, Offering to sell
his interest in his fathers estate for
81, 500. Some time after that q suit was
instituted in the county court, with all
proper parties, to make PARTITION of the
estate, or Its sale if not susceptible of
lartition, with the additional prayer that
If il appeared for the interests of the
widow and children of James, the share
set apart for them She uld be sold and rhe
proceeds be reinvested for their benefit.
There was partition, and the share of the
widow and children of james was sold by
the trustees to Yates by deed dated III
1873. and the proceeds invested in lands
in Missouri, purchased from Sutton to-
wit, the sum oil SO, 800 in cash. And
deed was made of this land to said widow
and child, en-. Yates disposed of parts Of
the laud purchased from the trustee, and
he and his alienees are made defendants
to n suit begun March, 1S92--nearlv four
years after the youngest child of James
had attained Ma. ority-whereln it is con-
tend d that the county court had no jul
risdiction 10 sell lands of persons under
disability; that the decree in that case
was nullity; that the act of February 3,
1878, on which appellees relied to validate
the proceedings was unconstitutional and
void; that the deed of the trustee to
Yates, in pursuance of the decree, was a
breach of trust, in excess of his author
ity, and void and that all who took under
it had notice of it's iu6rmity, with the
prayer that said deed, and all subsequent
ones, be set aside; that coin plainants be
put in possession of the land and defend
ants be required to account for rents and
profits.
The record discloses shat complainants
knew that the p1 oceeds of the land sold
were Invested liz the land bought of SUIT
ton in Missouri; that the whole transac-
ton was free from all fraud; that the
land was sold at II fair price, and judi
ciouslv reinvested with the approval of
those interested, who received the benefit
of it during their infancy, and have Ey
their conduct since they attained II ajor.
:ty approved and confirmed the same
Heidi Without passing on the effect of
the proceedings bad in the county court
the deed from the trustee to Yates passed
the legal title. was Il voidable and not
void transaction, and, the refore, Capa-
BILE of valuation by the subsequent ac
qESescence and ratification of those inter-
ested. Their duty was to dis4tIirm
promptly OH coming of age, instead Of
visiting more than three and halt years
after the youngest OF these came at age.
all of them dealing with the property in
which proceeds of sale had been invested
as their own. After such inexcusable
delay. superadded to positive acts of
atfirmance; after having waited till the
trustee had become IL lunatic aud died, it
is too late for them to ask of equity to
have this sale annulled and rights us-
turhed which have been vested twenty
five years. and transmitted To long sue
cession of alienees who have greatly i'm
proved the property. and that, too. with
out any offer to return the consideration
thew have received Mustard w Walsord,
ID Craft. BAL, Hiilyer VS.. Bennett, FL.
lis Oh. r., 1922; > Story's Equity Jur.,
Sec. 1862