Ligon v. Ligon

• Decision Date: 12 June 1888
• Citation: 84 Ala. 555,4 So. 405
• Parties: LIGON ET AL v. LIGON ET. AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 405

84 Ala. 555

LIGON ET AL v. LIGON ET. AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 12, 1888

Appeal from probate court, Cleburne county; BARTLETT OWEN, Judge.

David W. Ligon and others, heirs of David G. Ligon, deceased entered a motion in the probate court to set aside an order for the conveyance of certain lands belonging to their ancestor's estate to Wilson M. Ligon and J. T. Smith. The motion was overruled, and appeal taken by the heirs.

Kelley & Smith, for appellants.

Aiken & Burton, for appellees.

CLOPTON J.

On November 11, 1872, W. M. Ligon, as administrator, sold a portion of the lands of the estate of David G. Ligon under an order of the probate court, and himself became the purchaser. Under an amended order, he sold, October 15, 1874, other lands which were purchased by J. T. Smith. The sales were duly reported and confirmed. In February, 1877, Ligon made a final settlement of his administration. On February 8, 1888, he reported the payment of the purchase money, and made application for orders of conveyances of title. On the same day, without notice to the heirs of decedent, the court ascertained that the purchase money had been paid, and made an order that Ligon, as administrator, make a conveyance to Smith of the lands bought by him, and appointed T. J. Burton commissioner, and directed him to make conveyance to Ligon of the lands purchased by him. In April thereafter the appellants, who were heirs at law of the decedent, moved the court to vacate and annul the orders for the conveyances of title. From the judgment of the court refusing to grant this motion this appeal is taken.

The statute provides, generally, that after confirmation of the sale and payment of the purchase money, on application of the purchaser, his heirs, or some person claiming under him, or of the personal representative, the court must order a conveyance to be made to such purchaser, his heirs, or person claiming under him, by the personal representative, or such other person as the court may appoint. Code 1886, § 2124. It is insisted that application by the purchaser, his heirs, or person claiming under him, or by the personal representative is a jurisdictional fact, and that Ligon was not the administrator at the time the application was made by reason of having made a final settlement, in 1877. As settled by our former decisions, a final settlement, though regularly made, does not necessarily discharge the administrator from further accounting, unless there is an order discharging him from his office, or unless decrees are rendered distributing the residue of the estate among those entitled, and they have been paid. Simmons v. Price, 18 Ala. 405; Tarver v. Tankersley, 51 Ala. 309. In the absence of proof that an order was made discharging the administrator, or that decrees of distribution were rendered, we should presume, in support of the judgment of the court, that his functions had not ceased. But, independent of this consideration, the application having been made by Ligon in his representative capacity, the order of the court, that Ligon, as administrator, make a conveyance to Smith of the lands purchased by him, was a judicial ascertainment that Ligon was the rightful administrator. Without the determination of this fact, which was necessarily involved, the court could not have made such order of conveyance. Farley v. Dunklin, 76 Ala. 530. Though the fact may have been erroneously determined, and the order reversible on appeal, it is conclusive so long as unreversed, and cannot be pronounced void. The next question is, are the orders, or either of them, void for want of jurisdiction of the parties? At this stage of the...