Bennett v. Hayden

Citations

• 145 Pa. 586
• 23 A. 255
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 767

Syllabus

<p>1. Under §§ 22-24, act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 597, empowering the Court of Common Pleas to authorize the committee of a lunatic to “ sell at public sale, or mortgage” his real estate, for the payment of his debts, the maintenance of his family, and the education of his minor children, the court has no power to decree a private sale, and no jurisdiction to entertain a petition therefor.</p> <p>2. Nor has that court jurisdiction to decree even a public sale for the purposes aforesaid, if it do not appear upon the face of the petition that the notice to the wife, if any, and the next of kin of the lunatic, required by § 24 of the act, had been given. It is settled law that the facts set out in the petition determine the jurisdiction of the court.</p> <p>3. Such want of jurisdiction may be set up in ejectment by the widow and heirs of the lunatic against the purchaser at such invalid sale, or his grantee. And it is not error to refuse an amendment of the record of such sale so as to show such notice, when in fact the notice inquired was not given. A record can be amended only when there is something to amend by.</p> <p>4. A sale for the payment of debts, the maintenance of the lunatic’s family, and the education of Ms minor children, can derive no support from the act of April 18,1853, P. L. 503. That act was not intended to apply to cases where the court already had full power to order a sale, nor to interfere with the mode of proceeding under prior acts.</p> <p>5. Heirs of a deceased lunatic recovered an absolute judgment in ejectment for land sold by his committee under a void decree. The question whether the verdict should have been conditional, providing for re-payment of the purchase money, and money paid by the vendee in discharge of a paramount encumbrance, could not be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.</p>