Haynes v. Simpson

143 Ala. 554
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1904·Published

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

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] the 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.

McClellan, C. J., Tyson and Simpson, J.J., concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Haynes v. Simpson, 143 Ala. 554 (Ala. 1904).

143 Ala. 554 (Haynes v. Simpson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Field's Heirs v. Goldsby
28 Ala. 218 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)
Bland v. Bowie
53 Ala. 152 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Goodwin v. Sims
86 Ala. 102 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Smith v. Brannon
99 Ala. 445 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1892)