
    [Philadelphia,
    December 1824.]
    KENNEDY against WACHSMUTH.
    The Orphans’ Court may amend its proceedings, after a sale by an administrator under its order, by adding to the administrator’s account exhibited, his affidavit, that the same was just and true, formerly taken in court, but not filed.
    The affidavit of one administrator, to the truth of the account exhibited in the Orphans’ Court, is sufficient, though there are other administrators.
    The decrees of the Orphans’ Court may be controverted, where it exceeds its jurisdiction ; but where it is acting' within its jurisdiction, the truth of what is asserted on record, cannot be denied in a collateral proceeding.
    case stated.
    This was an action on the. case, brought by Robert Kennedy against John G. Wachsmuth, to recover damages for the non-performance of a contract, for the purchase of certain lots of ground in the county of Philadelphia. By the contract, the plaintiff was to give to the defendant a valid and legal title to the lots; and the defendant alleged, that the title offered to him by the plaintiff, was not a valid and legal title. The plaintiff’s title was derived as follows:
    
      John C. Wells died intestate in the year 1812, seized in fee simple of the said lots, and leaving a widow and five children. Letters of administration of his estate were granted to William Levis, and Mary Wells, his widow. On the 16th of July, 1813, the administrators petitioned tbe Orphans’ Court of the county of 
      Philadelphia, for an order to sell the real estate, and, at the same time, exhibited an account certified by the register to have been settled before him, and attested by the affirmations of the administrators, which account included in one item, the amount of the appraised inventory, showing a balance in favour of the estate in their hands, of six hundred and forty-seven dollars, twelve Cents, and also an inventory and appraisement of all the intestate’s personal estate, together with an account of the debts due to and from the estate; leaving a balance of debts due from the estate, of ten thousand, six hundred and seventy-five dollars, eighty-seven cents. To the said inventory, there was no affirmation or oath of the administrators annexed; but the appraisement of the said inventory annexed thereto, was affirmed to before the register by one of the appraisers on the 15th of July, 1813, the other appraiser being then dead. Nor was any affirmation or oath annexed to the said petition, nor to the said account, of debts when the said order of sale was petitioned for, but in the year 1823, certain proceedings were had in the Orphans’ Court, as will hereafter appear.
    On the 16th of July, 1813, an order of sale was made by the Orphans’ Court, pursuant to the prayer of the said petition, and the usual and regular notices of sale given; and, on the 20th of Jlpril, 1S13, the administrators reported, that they had sold the lots above described. This sale was confirmed by the court, and afterwards set aside.
    On the 15th of October, 1813, the administrators resold the property to Robert Kennedy and Conrad Carpenter, which sale was confirmed by the court, and a deed made to the purchasers, accordingly; and, by sundry conveyances from Carpenter, the whole property in question became vested in Robert Kennedy, the plaintiff.
    Among the records of the Orphans’ Court, were also found the following proceedings!
    
      “ 19th of March, 1822. — -On motion of John Ptirdon, esq., ordered by the court, That the record of the proceedings in the sale of the real estate of John C, Wells, deceased, be amended by adding to the exhibited account of all the intestate’s debts, filed by the administrators of the said John C. Wells, the affirmation of William Levis, one of the said administrators, as taken in court by the said William Levis, at the time of exhibiting the said account, and before any order of sale made thereon, 4 that the same is a just and true account of all the intestate’s debts, which had then come to the knowledge of the said administrators.’”
    In pursuance of this order of the court, the said William Le* Vis, on the 2d of Jlpril, 1S22, in open court, made and subscribed the following affirmation, which was entered of record, and also on the said account! “ William Levis, the administrator above named, on his solemn affirmation to him administered, says, That at the time of exhibiting the foregoing account of the intestate, John C. Wells’s debts to the Orphans’ Court, and before any allowance or order was made by the said court for the sale of the said intessate’s lands, he did in open Court make the above-mentioned affirmation before the said Orphans’ Court, viz. “ William Levis, (late William Levis, jr.,) one of the administrators of John C. Wells, deceased, being affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation saith, that the foregoing is a just and true account of all the intestate’s debts, which have come to the knowledge of the said administrator.” And he doth further say, that the foregoing account is a just and true account of all the intestate’s debts which had then come, or at any time since have come, to the knowledge of the said administrator.
    (Signed) William Levis,
    
    “ Affirmed in open court, &c.”
    On the above case stated, the question for the opinion of the court was, Whether the foregoing proceedings, so vested in the said Robert Kennedy the title of the said John C. Wells to the lots in question, as that the said John G. Wachsmuth should, under his said contract with the plaintiff, have completed his purchase.
    The case was argued by Purdon, for the plaintiff, and by Scott, for the defendant.
    For the defendant, it was objected, that tho title of the plaintiff was not good, inasmuch as the requisites of the law respecting sales of land by administrators, under an order of the Orphans’ Court, had not been complied with. The act of the 19th of April, 1794, sect. S, Purd. Rig. 292, provides, that no Orphans’ Court shall allow or order any intestate’s lands or tenements to be sold, before the administrator or administrators requesting the same, shall exhibit a true and perfect inventory of all the intestate’s personal estate whatsoever, as also a just and true account upon his, hex’, or their solemn oath or affirmation, of all the intestate’s debts, which shall be then come to his, her, or their knowledge! yet no such account was filed before the order of sale, in the present case, was granted. The Orphans’ Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and must conform to the directions of the act in its proceedings, or they are liable to be examined and set aside in a collateral suit. In Messinger v. Kintner, 4 Binn.. 97, it was held, that an unauthorized decree of an Orphans’ Court for the sale of lands will not stand, Until reversed in a regular course of appeal; but may be questioned, in a collateral suit, by or against a person claiming under that decree. If the decree in the present case was unauthorized, the objection may at any time hereafter be taken in a suit for the land by the defendant, and the land wholly lost. The amendment allowed by the Orphans’ Court does not remove the objection. Supposing the Court had power to receive the affidavit, it eame too late; the act forbids any order of sale of the lands, unless tho affidavit be filed before such order is made. It is a further ground of objection to the. title, that if the affirmation of Mr. Levis be considered correct in point of time, it is the affirmation of only one of the administrators, whereas the spirit of the act of 1794, is that where there are several administrators who'request an order of sale, all should join in the oath or affirmation.
    For the plaintiff, it was answered, that it substantially appeared by the record, that there was not sufficient personal estate to pay the debts, and that was sufficient. Great allowances are always made for want of form, in cases of sales by order of the Orphans’ Court. Snyder’s Lessee v. Snyder, 6 Binn. 497. Bickle v. Young, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 2-35. Price v. Johnson, 4 Ye. a tes, 528. 2 Yeates, 118. Huckle v. Phillips, 2 Serg. & Rawle,' 7. But if a defect ever existed in the record, it has been completely cured by the order of the Orphans’ Court in 1822, which contains every thing required by the act. That order allows the proceedings to be amended by .adding the requisite affidavit to the exhibited account. This account, so amended, is then the record; and the truth of the records of the Orphans’ Court, concerning matters within their jurisdiction, cannot be disputed. Selin v. Snyder, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 172. As to the objection, that only one of the administrators has made the affirmation, that was overruled in this court in the case of Snyder’s Lessee v. Snyder, 6 Binh. 497.
   Per Curiam.

The question in this case, is, Whether a sale of the real estate of John C. Wells, esq., deceased, made by order of the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia, was valid ?

It is contended, on the part of the defendant, that the Orphans’ Court had no pov\ er to make the order for sale, because the administrators of John C. Wells did not, previous to the said order, exhibit an account upon oath, of all the intestate’s debts, which had then come to their knowledge, as is required by the act of the 19th of JLpril, 1794, sect. 20. On inspecting the record of the Orphans’ Court, we find, that on the 14th of January, 1813, the administrators of Wells, (William Levis and Mary Weills,) petitioned for an order of sale of the. real estate, which was granted; and, in pursuance thereof, the estate was sold, and the sale confirmed by the court. At that time, no account of the debts of the intestate, verified b.y the oath of the administrators, appeared upon the record. But, on the 19th of March, 1822, the Orphans’ Court made an order, “that the record should be amended, !)? adding to the account exhibited by the administrators of John C. Wells, of all the intestate’s debts, the affirmation of William Levis, one of the administrators, as taken in court by the said Levis, at the time of exhibiting the said account, and before any order of sale, that the same is a just and time account of all the intestate’s debts, which had then come to the knowledge of the said administrator.” It cannot be doubted, that the court had power to order this amendment. The affirmation ought to have been recorded at the time it was made, and the not entering it of record, was no more than a clerical omission. • So long ago as the. year 1650, an amendment was permitted, by causing judgment to be entered on a verdict, which the prothonotarv had omitted, — and this too after an execution had been issued, and exception taken to the proceeding. (Styles’ Rep. 229.) In considering the record before us, therefore, we must now take it, that the affirmation of Levis was Tnade previous to the order of sale. Then all is right, for the record cannot be contradicted. The orders, or decrees of the Orphans’ Court, where it exceeds its jurisdiction, may be controverted. But where it is acting within its jurisdiction, the truth of what is asserted on record, cannot be denied. This was decided in the case of Selin and others v. Snyder, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 172. But, it is objected, that, granting the affirmation, in this case, to have been made by William Levis, according to the amended record, still it is defective, for want of the oath or affirmation of Mary Wells, the administratrix. The very same objection was taken, and overruled by this court, in the Lessee of Snyder v. Snyder, 6 Binn. 497. It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the proceedings in the Orphans’ Court were according to law, and the sale of the real estate of John C. Wells, was valid. Judgment is to be entered for the plaintiffi

Judgment for the plaintiff.  