56 Ala. 238 | Ala. | 1876
We cannot doubt the correctness of the decree of the chancellor. If the Court of Probate had not jurisdiction to decree a sale of the lands, the appellant’s remedy is at law, not in equity. — Posey v. Conway, 10 Ala. 811. The jurisdiction, however, is conferred by the statutes, and was exercised in substantial conformity to the mode they prescribe. — R. C. §§ 3120-3126. The commissioners appointed to conduct the sale, were the officers of the court. The court was the vendor; and until confirmation, the sale was incomplete, subject to be vacated for any irregularity which may have intervened, or because of inadequacy of consideration, or because of fraud, or unfairness, attending it. After confirmation, mere irregularities are cured; the sale is complete, and, except for fraud, in which the purchaser participates, his title cannot be disturbed. The decree of confirmation is the final decree in the proceeding for the sale, and cannot be collaterally impeached. — Hutton v. Williams, 35 Ala. 503; Perkins v. Winter, 7 Ala. 855; Jennings v. Jenkins, 9 Ala. 285; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 247.
The bill does not aver any fraud or collusion between the purchaser and the commissioners making the sale, nor that the lands were not sold for their full value. The evidence is clear and uncontradicted, that the price paid for them was their full value. The of the complaint against the
The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.