Haynes v. Simpson
This text of 143 Ala. 554 (Haynes v. Simpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The sale of the land in question in the year 1882, by the administrator, for the payment of the debts of the intestate, J. A. Thompson, under a decree of the probate court, divested the title out of the heirs. The failure to make this plaintiff, who claims to be an heir of J. A. Thompson, a party to the proceeding for the sale of the land, cannot vitiate the sale or affect the title of the purchaser, as it was but an irregularity not available to the plaintiff upon a collateral attack of [556]*556the sale. The record recites a compliance with section 167 of the Code of 1896, as to the talcing of the testimony-in support of the petition for sale and other jurisdictional facts. — Goodwin v. Sims, 86 Ala. 102 ; Field v. Goldsby, 28 Ala. 218; Bland v. Bowie, 53 Ala. 152; Massey v. Smith, 73 Ala. 174; Smith v. Brannon, 99 Ala. 445.
As the defendants hold under the title acquired by the purchaser at the administrator’s sale, they were entitled to,the general affirmative charge which was requested by them and refused by the trial court.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
143 Ala. 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-simpson-ala-1904.