
    Stephenson’s Administrator v. Addison & Al.
    Where the purchaser of a slave at probate sale, remains in the undisturbed possession, and has paid part of the price, it will be considered a ratification of the sale, and ho cannot resist payment of the balance.
    If a sale becomes valid by ratification of the purchaser, and the seller seeks payment, there can be no (banger of eviction, vrben no third party makes any claim. — Seo C. O. 2252; 10 M". 726; 6 L. 604; 4E. 127.
    Appeal from the court of the eighth district, for the parish of St. Helena, the judge thereof presiding.
    This is an action by the administrator of one Presly L. Stephenson’s es-[455] tate, to recover the amount of a note given in part payment of the price of a slave sold at probate sale, and purchased by the defendant, Addison.
    The defendant and his surety pleaded the general issue, and averred that the sale was illegal, and conferred no title on the purchaser; and refer to the case of Morris et al. v. Kemp, 14 La. Rep. 251, in support of the averment ; that the sale being illegal, they are in danger of eviction, and entitled to security before payment is demanded.-' They pray, however, for a rescission of the sale with the return of so much of the price as they have paid, and of their notes for the balance.
    The district judge was of opinion that all the formalities of law x’elating to the sale of property in which minors are interested had not been observed, but as the suit was brought to enforce the sale by the legal representative of the minor, alone -interested, that the defendants could not complain; especially when it was shown the purchaser was in possession, and no danger of eviction from any other quarter.
    There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.
    
      Sheafe for the plaintiff and appellee.
    
      Lawson & Baylies for the defendants.
   Bullard, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by tho administrator of the estate of one Stephenson, to recover the price of a slave sold at the probate sale of the estate. Judgment was rendered against the purchaser and his surety, and they appealed. The appellants make two points to this court: 1. That the sale of the slave was a nullity, and conveyed no right, as was decided by this court in the case of Morris et al. v. Kemp, 14 La. Rep. 251. And 2. That if the coux’t should sustain the sale and enfoi’ce the obligation of the defendants, yet they are- entitled to security against eviction.

[450] I. The report of the case relied upon shows that the purchaser of a tract of land, at the same probate sale, obtained a monition under the Act of 1834, and that the tutor of the minor heir of Stephenson, made opposition on the ground of radical nullities in the proceedings, which led to the sale, and that the land did not sell for its appraised value. Upon appeal to this oourt the opposition was sustained, and the sale of the land cancelled. But the sale of the slave purchased by the defendant was not questioned in that case. The purchaser appears to be in the undisturbed possession of him, and as this suit is brought by the legal representative of the estate to recover the pi’ice, we concur with the judge of the distinct in opinion that it amounts to a ratification of the sale.

II. Our opinion upon this second point is but a corollary from that first expressed, for if the sale be rendered valid by ratification and the payment of the price, thei’e is no danger of eviction on the part of the estate of Stephensqn, and none is shown or even pretended from any other quarter

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.  