Morton v. Carroll
Mississippi Supreme Court
From: the circuit court of Lee county. HoN. Lock E. HoustoN, Judge. The appellants brought this action of ejectment in January, 1890, against appellee to recover a certain lot in the town of Tupelo. Plaintiffs claim as children and sole heirs of William K,. Coleman, Avho died in 1869 seized and possessed of the lot.
Read the full summary
From: the circuit court of Lee county. HoN. Lock E. HoustoN, Judge. The appellants brought this action of ejectment in January, 1890, against appellee to recover a certain lot in the town of Tupelo. Plaintiffs claim as children and sole heirs of William K,. Coleman, Avho died in 1869 seized and possessed of the lot. Appellee claims title through one McPherson, who purchased the lot at a sale thereof by the guardian of appellants under a decree of the probate court of Lee county rendered February 21, 1870. On the trial the plaintiff objected to the introduction of the guardian’s deed, because…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
The sale of the lot in controversy by order of the probate court was valid, and passed the title of the plaintiffs, heirs of Coleman. Process for the minors in the proceeding for the decree of sale was not necessary. Code of 1857, p. 463, art. 151; Stampley v. King, 51 Miss. 728; Burrus v. Burrus, 56 Ib. 92.
The law did not require a bond to be given by the guardian, code of 1857, 463, art. 151; and the court did not require one, and therefore none was necessary. Vanderberg v. Williamson, 52 Miss. 233.
Whether the decree required ten or thirty days’ notice of the sale is immaterial, as thirty…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Vanderburg v. WilliamsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Stampley v. KingMississippi Supreme Court · 1875