Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Ind. 55

Comparet v. Randall

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1853

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1853-05-23

<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1882

2 state decisions

Relies on Hough v. Canby

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-05-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Perkins, J.

¶1This 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.

¶2Where 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.

¶3The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/4/ind/55 · .json · Public domain