Peek v. Haardt, 3 Div. 235
Decision Date | 18 December 1937 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 235 |
Citation | 235 Ala. 145,177 So. 634 |
Parties | PEEK v. HAARDT et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Eugene W. Carter Judge.
Suit in equity by John H. Haardt against S.L. Peek and Bryant P Bryant, as administratrix of the estate of Eleanor P. Moore deceased, to quiet title to real estate. From a decree for complainant, respondent Peek appeals.
Affirmed.
L.A Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos. B. Hill, Jr., and Wm. Inge Hill, both of Montgomery, for appellees.
This is a statutory bill to quiet title to real estate. Code 1923, § 9905.
Complainant's claim of title, fully set out in the bill, is that of a purchaser at an administrator's sale of the lands, as part of the estate of Eleanor P. Moore, deceased, through proceedings in the equity court to which the administration of the estate had been removed.
Admittedly the proceedings for the sale of these lands on petition of the administratrix for the payment of the debts of the estate, and for division among the heirs, were in all respects regular, resulting in the sale, confirmation, payment of purchase money, and deed under decrees of the court.
Appellant, one of the heirs of said decedent, setting up his claim of title as required of respondents in such cases, challenged the validity of the sale on two grounds.
First, letters of administration were granted prematurely, and in violation of section 5747, of the Code, saying: "No letters of administration must be granted until the expiration of five days after the death of the intestate is known."
Without dispute the death of the intestate occurred on the 12th and letters of administration were issued on the 17th of the same month. Granting this was one day premature (Ex parte Campbell, 229 Ala. 422, 157 So. 675), the question is whether this rendered the sale void, or was merely an irregularity which could not affect the validity of the sale on collateral attack.
Section 5752 (2530) of the Code provides: "Letters testamentary or of administration, *** are conclusive evidence of the authority of the person to whom the same are granted, from the date thereof until the same are revoked."
This section is quite as clear and effective as section 5747. Johnson v. Kyser, 127 Ala. 309, 27 So. 784.
In this state, by constitutional provision, section 149, the probate court is made one of general jurisdiction in the grant of letters testamentary and of administration.
Carr v. Illinois Central R. Co., 180 Ala. 159, 165, 60 So. 277, 279, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 634; Burke v. Mutch, 66 Ala. 568; Barclift v. Treece, 77 Ala. 528; Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 99, 49 Am.Rep. 809; Curtis v. Williams, 33 Ala. 570; 23 C.J. 1086, § 247.
Moreover, the entertainment of the petition reciting jurisdictional facts, the rendition of a decree of sale, and further orders and decrees in such proceedings involved a judicial determination of the fact that petitioner was administratrix, as alleged in the petition, and the sale could not be impeached in a collateral proceeding on the ground that petitioner was not in fact administratrix, or that the grant of administration was invalid. This, of course, subject to the rule that there must be an estate to administer within the jurisdiction of the court. This is a principle of law relating to judicial sales. May v. Marks, 74 Ala. 249, 253; Landford v. Dunklin, 71 Ala. 594; Freeman on Judgments, § 523.
The second ground on which complainant's title is questioned is that the administratrix had not given a bond in double the value of the estate real and personal property, required by section 5762, before obtaining an order for the sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buck v. City of Rainsville
...days is consistent with prior cases, except for its reference to June 28 in the last paragraph quoted above. See, e.g., Peek v. Haardt, 235 Ala. 145, 177 So. 634 (1937), and Ex parte Campbell, 229 Ala. 422, 157 So. 675 (1934).3 In the case of the death of a minor child, § 6-5-391 in some in......
-
Hous. Auth. of the Birmingham Dist. v. Logan Props., Inc.
... ... Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.2d 3 (Ala.1997). Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate issue ... III. Section 235 of the of Alabama Constitution provides that entities ... ...
-
Clark v. Glenn
...31 So.2d 507 249 Ala. 342 CLARK v. GLENN. 5 Div. 428-A, 5 Div. 428-B.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 26, 1947 ... 3. That ... Bunk Henry Clark was an inhabitant of Chilton ... element of validity until it was revoked. Peek v ... Haardt, 235 Ala. 145, 177 So. 634, 113 A.L.R. 1395 ... ...