
    Thomas Mawhorter and others v. John Armstrong and others.
    A bill in chancery will not lie to sot aside a sale made by an administrator, claiming that the same is void because made without any order of sale of the court of common pleas; the sale in such case being void, and there being adequate remedy at law.
    This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Mercer county.
    The bill states that William A. Huston, the father of complainants, died intestate, seized of real estate in Mercer and ^Shelby counties, which descended to them as his children and only heirs. At the April term, 1827, of the common pleas of Mercer county, the administrator of Huston’s estate filed a petition for leave to sell so much of the real estate as might be required to pay the debts. The land sold under this petition did not produce the amount required, and at the December term of the same court, the administrator filed a supplemental bill for the sale of other lands, situate on the west side of St. Mary’s riven At the April term, 1829, of the court, a return was made of lands appraised, including some acres on the west side of St. Mary’s river, marked on the plat returned as lot 2, No. 19. At the November term of the court, the administrator reported that he had sold said lot 19 to John Armstrong and David Armstrong, together with other lots and lands. The court confirmed the sale of lot 19, and ordered a deed, which the administrator executed and delivered to said John and David Armstrong. Since the execution of this deed, both John and David Armstrong have died, and their heirs are made defendants to this bill. The bill charges that no notice was ever given to the complainants of either the original or supplemental petition to sell the lands of William A. Huston, deceased; that the commissioners were only authorized by the order of court to assign dower to the widow, and had no authority to appraise lot 19 with a view to a sale; that said lot 19 was not included or mentioned in either the petition or supplemental petition for the sale of the lands of said estate; that no notice was given of the time and place of sale of lot 19 ; that said John Armstrong, one of the purchasers of this lot, was one of the appraisers who had valued it. The complainants aver, that said Huston, their ancestor, died seized and possessed of this lot, and that the conveyance by the administrator to the Armstrongs was fraudulent and void; and they pray the court to decree, that the deed be set aside and canceled; that the defendants convey all their right and interest in lot 19 to complainants; and that general relief.may be decreed. Some of the defendants answer for ^themselves, and some, being minors, by their guardian ad litem. The answers filed by the defendants who are of age, deny generally the allegations of the bill; but they insist, whether any or all of them be found true or untrue, they can not affect legally their rights in this suit, or their title to lot 19.
    Byers, Thompson & Conklin, for the complainants.
    W. M. Crane, for the. defendants.
   Avery, J.

The first question presented for our consideration is, whether a case is here made for the exercise of chancery powers, in behalf of the complainants; whether, admitting the truth of all the allegations in the bill, this court can pronounce a decree in their favor, in accordance with the prayer, either for specific or general relief. A court of chancery will not entertain jurisdiction where there is plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Does this bill show such a case ? It avers that William A. Huston died seized and possessed of said lot 19, and that the same descended to complainants as his children and heirs at law; that no notice was over given to them of the filing and pendency of either the original or supplemental petition of the administrator for leave to sell the real estate ; that this lot 19 was not included or mentioned in either of the petitions for tho sale of the intestate’s lands. Taking these allegations of the bill to be true, it is very certain that the court of common pleas, then acting as a court of probate, did not exercise jurisdiction, either of the person or land. The sale of this lot 19 was of course void, according to the former decisions of this court; and the remedy was perfect at law, by an action of ejectment. The defendants to this bill now claim a decree upon the principles above recognized. The discussion in the case, however, has turned principally upon another question, which it was supposed might arise ; and that is, in what light a sale is to be viewed to a person who *had acted as one of the appraisers of the property? The inquiry has also been made, whether the principio decided in the case of Armstrong v. Huston’s Heirs, 8 Ohio, 552, is to be considered as correctly settled, according to the authorities ; and if so, whether any effect is to be given to tho act of 1811, intended to make valid all sales of administrators to appraisers, where no actual fraud existed. The court, however, have declined entering, at this time, upon the examination of any of these matters, because the complainant’s case, upon their own showing, is one for which there is ample remedy at law, and for that reason they are not entitled to make their appeal to a court of equity. The bill is dismissed.  