Irwin v. Flynn

Citations

• 110 La. 829
• 34 So. 794
• 1903 La. LEXIS 713

Syllabus

<p>ADMINISTRATION — SALE TO PAT DEBTS — ACTION AGAINST ADMINISTRATOR — JURISDICTION OF COURT.</p> <p>1. A sale under an order of court to pay debts may not protect the administrator, although it may be sufficient to protect the third person who is without notice of informalities charged.</p> <p>2. When a succession is in progress of litigation, the interest of the litigators is deducto xeri aliendo, and they are not necessarily to be consulted as an essential condition precedent to an order to pay debts.</p> <p>3. The heirs may hare an action against the administrator for damages for his failure to properly discharge his trust, but it does not necessarily involve the validity of the sale.</p> <p>4. The question of necessity and legality of the sale is covered by the decree ordering it, unless legal objection is made.</p> <p>5. In order that the rule regarding the sale to pay debts may apply, it is necessary that the court should be actually vested with jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that the purchaser should be an innocent third party; that the cause of nullity should be anterior to and •covered by the judgment. The present case falls within the rule.</p> <p>6. The court had authority to order the sale, •and the purchaser was a third person.</p> <p>7. The parties interested are represented in the proceedings by the administrator.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>