Martin's v. Truss

Supreme Court of Alabama

Martin's v. Truss

50 Ala. 95

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 Ala. 95 (Martin's v. Truss) 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.

Bluebook

Martin's v. Truss, 50 Ala. 95 (Ala. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, C. J..

This case is precisely similar to the case of Hickson et al. v. Lingold et al., decided at the January term of this court, 1872. In that case, Chief Justice Peck, delivering the opinion of the court, says: “ Where executors sell the lands of their testator, under an order of sale by the probate court for that purpose, if the vendee gives his notes for the purchase-money, and is let into and retains the possession of the premises, he cannot, at law, defend an action by the executors [97]*97on said notes, on the ground that the order of sale was erroneous ; even its utter invalidity is no defence to such an action.” 47 Ala. 450. The principle thus laid down fully covers the point made in this case, in favor of the appellant. Even in equity, the fact that the sale was void would not be a sufficient ground for relief, when it appears that there was no warranty, no fraud, and no mistake or ignorance of any material facts. Burns v. Hamilton, adm'r, 33 Ala. 210. While the defendant in the court below remained in possession of the lands purchased under the order of the probate court, he could not defend, at law, a suit for the purchase-money.

Therefore, upon authority of the case of Hickson v. Lingold (47 Ala. 449), the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded. '

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

PETERS, C. J..

This case is precisely similar to the case of Hickson et al. v. Lingold et al., decided at the January term of this court, 1872. In that case, Chief Justice Peck, delivering the opinion of the court, says: “ Where executors sell the lands of their testator, under an order of sale by the probate court for that purpose, if the vendee gives his notes for the purchase-money, and is let into and retains the possession of the premises, he cannot, at law, defend an action by the executors [97]*97on said notes, on the ground that the order of sale was erroneous ; even its utter invalidity is no defence to such an action.” 47 Ala. 450. The principle thus laid down fully covers the point made in this case, in favor of the appellant. Even in equity, the fact that the sale was void would not be a sufficient ground for relief, when it appears that there was no warranty, no fraud, and no mistake or ignorance of any material facts. Burns v. Hamilton, adm'r, 33 Ala. 210. While the defendant in the court below remained in possession of the lands purchased under the order of the probate court, he could not defend, at law, a suit for the purchase-money.

Therefore, upon authority of the case of Hickson v. Lingold (47 Ala. 449), the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Ala. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martins-v-truss-ala-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack