TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Comparet v. Randall

Comparet and Others v. Randall

Comparet v. Randall, 4 Ind. 55 (1853)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 23, 1853
Judges
Perkins
Citations
4 Ind. 551853 Ind. LEXIS 7
Headnotes
An administrator is not authorized by the R. S. 1843, to take possession of the real estate of the intestate, if the heirs are present. An order of the Probate Court for the leasing of real estate of an intestate upon the petition of the administrator, is erroneous, if the heirs of the intestate, being infants, did not appear to the action, and no guardian ad litem was appointed to answer for them.
Summary
ERROR to the Allen Probate Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Perkins, J.

This was a petition to the Allen Probate Court by Franklin P. Randall, administrator on the estate of Francis Comparet, deceased, for permission to sell or lease real estate of which said Comparet died seized, for the payment of debts. The heirs of said Comparet, who were minors, were made parties, and summoned to appear, &c. They made default, and a decree was rendered that the administrator should lease their land. No guardian ad litem was appointed.

Where heirs are present, the administrator is not authorized, of his own volition, to take posssession of the real estate of the estate upon which he administers. R. S. 1843, p. 571. The control of the real estate assumed by Randall in this case must, therefore, depend upon the authority conferred by his legal proceedings. Those proceedings were erroneous, in the omission to appoint a guardian ad litem to answer for the heirs; Hough v. Canby, 8 Blackf. 301 ; and must, consequently, be reversed.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1875–1876: 11881–1882: 118752026peak 1875 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cole v. Lafontaine84 Ind. 446 (1882)
  2. Humphrey v. Merritt51 Ind. 197 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Cole v. Lafontaine84 Ind. 446 (1882)
  2. Humphrey v. Merritt51 Ind. 197 (1875)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hough v. Canby, 8 Blackf. 301 (1846) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list