Doe on the demise v. Bowen
| Decision Date | 29 November 1856 |
| Citation | 8 Ind. 183 |
| Parties | Doe on the demise of Mitchell v. Bowen and Another |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Carroll Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
D. D Pratt and H. Allen, for plaintiff.
Z Baird, for defendant.
Perkins J. Stuart, J., was absent in this case.
Ejectment. Judgment for the defendant.
The lessor of the plaintiff claims title as the sole heir of James Mitchell, deceased, and is entitled to recover if he had not been deprived of his title to the land by a sale made by the administrators upon his father's estate, through which the defendants derive title.
The validity of that sale must be determined upon a simple inspection of the Probate Court record, no extrinsic evidence having been given. That record shows, as it appears by the transcript before us--
1. The appointment of the administrators.
2. An inventory and appraisement of the real estate of James Mitchell, deceased, made and filed in the clerk's office on the 11th day of November, 1834, but making no mention of the existence of any heir, and praying no notice.
3. An order of the sale of said real estate made on the same day on which the inventory was filed.
4. An order made on the 9th of February following, confirming the sale.
In Horner v. Doe, 1 Ind. 130, it is said that where the record is silent upon the point, notice may be presumed; but this rule applies only in cases where the heirs have been made parties to the record. Here, there is no mention made, in any part of the record reciting the proceedings touching the sale, of the existence of an heir; and, surely in such case, we cannot presume that any heir was notified. See Martin v. Starr, 7 Ind. 224. The record in such case is not silent but speaks negatively.
But, even had the application for the sale contained a statement of the names or name of heirs or heir, still as the order of sale was made on the same day the application was filed, the record shows that the statutory notice of thirty days by service, or sixty days by publication, after the filing of such application, could not have been given; and no motion was made on behalf of the heir, as in the case of Thompson v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 336, indicating an actual presence in Court, whereby, formal notice might be rendered unnecessary.
It is shown by the record that a year subsequent to the sale a guardian was appointed by the Probate Court for the lessor of the plaintiff, then the infant heir of James Mitchell; but that has nothing to do with the proceedings leading to the sale by the administrators.
A deed of the administrators to the purchasers at the sale also appears, which contains various recitals; but these recitals do not appear to have been, nor was the deed itself, ever before the Probate Court, and they are not evidence. The sale in this case, then, having been ordered and confirmed without notice to the heir, is void. The Court acquired no jurisdiction to act in the premises [1].
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.
Stuart, J., was absent in this case.
---------
Notes:
[1]Where judicial proceedings in one State have come under review in the courts of another, they have with great unanimity been disregarded as nullities, in cases where notice to the defendant did not appear. Kibbe v. Kibbe, Kirby, 119; Phelps v Holker, 1 Dale 261; Kilburn v Woodworth, 5 Johns. 37; Robinson v Ward, 8 Johns. 86; Fenton v. Garlick, 8 Johns. 194; Pawling v. Bird, 13 Johns. 192; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121. See, also, Fisher v. Lane, 3 Wils. 297; Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East. 192; Holt v. Alloway, 2 Blackf. 108; and Cone v. Cotton, 2 Blackf. 82. And it is not easy to perceive on what ground a distinction can be taken between a domestic judgment and one rendered in another State of the Union. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481; Const. U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial