McNitt v. Turner

Citations

• 83 U.S. 352
• 21 L. Ed. 341
• 16 Wall. 352
• 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1167

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the statute of Illinois authorizing the sale of the real estate of. a decedent, and directing the executor or administrator to make out a petition to the county court “stating therein what real estate the said testator or intestate may have died seized of,” a statement of the real estate which he died “ leaving ” is a sufficient compliance with the statute.</p> <p>2. Where a statute of Illinois enacted that “in all cases where an intestate shall have been a non-resident or without a widow, &c., but having property in the Suite, administration should be granted to the public administrator of the proper county, and to no one else:” Held, that where a person to whom letters of administration on the estate of a nonresident applied, under the statute referred to in the paragraph above, to have a sale of his property, and the court, having jurisdiction of the subject, ordered the sale, it would not be presumed that he was not the public administrator.</p> <p>8. Where, under the same statute (the one referred to in the first of the above two paragraphs), an administrator gave public notice that he meant to apply to have a power to sell the decedent’s lands, stating that it belonged to him, and describing the several pieces in this way:</p> <p>Parts of Sections. Township. ■ Range.</p> <p>S. E. 4 ...... IS........ 4 W.</p> <p>S. W. 24 ...... 3 N....... 8 W.</p> <p>‘ ‘ All the above lands being recorded north or south of the base line, and east and West of the fourth principal meridian.”</p> <p>And the petition prayed to sell the decedent’s land, describing it as—</p> <p>S. E. 4 ...... IS....... 4 W.</p> <p>S.W. 24 • ...... 3 N....... 8W.</p> <p>Held, that the notice was correct, and the description in the petition, aided by the notice, sufficient.</p> <p>4. A. purchaser at judicial sale by an administrhtor, does not depend upon a return by the administrator making the sale, of what he has done. If the preliminary proceedings are correct, and he has the order of s