Shaw v. Swift
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to tbe Franklin Circuit Court. Bill in chancery by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error. The bill alleged that the complainants were the heirs of James Powell, who died intestate leaving 60 acres of land; that Ree-der Powell, as administrator of the said James, deceased, fraudulently procured an order to sell said land, and did, on the 6th of November, 1828, nominally sell and convey it to one Jonathan Shaw, but that the sale was really made to…
Read the full summary
ERROR to tbe Franklin Circuit Court. Bill in chancery by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error. The bill alleged that the complainants were the heirs of James Powell, who died intestate leaving 60 acres of land; that Ree-der Powell, as administrator of the said James, deceased, fraudulently procured an order to sell said land, and did, on the 6th of November, 1828, nominally sell and convey it to one Jonathan Shaw, but that the sale was really made to himself, through Shaw, who bought it for the administrator, and conveyed it to the latter on the 3d of December, 1828; that…
1Per curiam
— The heirs to whom this land descended, had a right to have the administrator’s sale to himself set aside by application in a reasonable time, upon payment of the purchase money, the value of improvements, &c. Gage v. Pike, November term, 1848, and cases cited. In this case it does not appear that the administrator, Reeder Powell, paid anything, from his own funds, for the land, and the improvements made by %im are not equal in value to the rents, which have not been claimed by the complainants; and under the circumstances of this case, we cannot ,say the complainants are barred by lapse of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Chapin v. ChurchillNew York Supreme Court · 1856