Case Name: LONGWORTH v. GOFORTH
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-04
Citations: 1 Wright 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: LONGWORTH v. GOFORTH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
LONGWORTH v. GOFORTH.
Defective sale by administrators — confirmation—satisfaction—answer in chancery good, if no proof.
Where land has been sold by administrators to pay debts, but there is a defect in the conveyance by the administrators, if the heir-at-law of full age ratify the sale, or accept a satisfaction for the same from the purchaser, he will not be permitted to enforce his claim to the land.
But if such allegation be denied in the answer, and there is no proof, the bill will be dismissed.
In Chancery. The complainant in this bill alleges that one Aaron Goforth died seized of lot No. 161, in Cincinnati, leaving sundry brothers his heirs. That his administrators applied to the Court of Common Pleas, and obtained an order to sell said lot to pay debts, under which it was sold to the complainant, but no entry or record was made of said order of sale, it has been held invalid at law, and the defendant as heir-at-law has recovered an ejectment. That after the said sale, &c., a settlement took place between the complainant and the administrators of A. Goforth, and the heirs, in which a sum of money was paid by the complainant, and received in full satisfaction of all claims upon the lot, with a full understanding of the premises, and he prays an injunction against said judgment, and to be quieted in his title.
The answer of the defendant admits the sale to the complain*ant, and the deed to him; but denies any agreement to con- [193 firm the sale, or the acceptance of any money for that purpose, and alleges his inability to do either at the time, because he was then a minor.
To this there is a general replication.

Opinion:
LANE, J.
The only ground on which the complainant can claim the interference of this court, is that of the defendant's having at full age confirmed the sale. The title has been adjudged upon at law* and this court cannot review the decision of a court of law. The alleged settlement, receipt of money, &c., in confirmation of the sale, is denied in the answer, and there is no proof; besides, it appears that the defendant was a minor at the period referred to, and incapable of confirming the sale.
The bill is dismissed.
* This doubtless refers to Goforth's Lessee v. Longworth, 4 O. 129.