
    (63 South. 901.)
    No. 19,767.
    CRAIN et al. v. TREMONT LUMBER CO. et al.
    (Dec. 20, 1913.)
    
      (Syllabubs by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Guardian and Ward (§ 42*) — Minors — Sale oe Ward’s Property — Private Sale —Validity.
    A sale of a minor’s property at private sale, though authorized by a family meeting, is null, except when made to effect a partition.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. §§ 173-185, 191; Dec. Dig. § 42.*]
    
      2. Guardian and Ward (§ 70*) — Invalid Sales — Ratification.
    The acceptance by minors, on attaining their majority, of the proceeds of a private sale by their tutor of their property does not amount to a ratification where they receive the proceeds without being informed that the proceeds were in settlement of the amount due them from their father’s estate, and without knowing that the proceeds were from the sale.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. §§ 308-315; Dec. Dig. § 70.*]
    Appeal from Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish, of Winn; W. M. Wallace, Judge.
    Action by Lawrence O. Crain and others against the Tremont Lumber 'Company. From a judgment granting relief to plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Cas Moss, of Winnfield, for exceptor, J. R. Sikes. Grisham & Oglesby, of Winnfield, for appellant. John H. Mathews, of Winnfield, and H. P. Gamble, of New Orleans, for appellees.
   PROVOSTY, J.

In this case minors’ property was sold at private sale. Needless to say that a sale of minors’ property at private sale, even though authorized by a family meeting, is null, except when the purpose is to effect a partition. Blair v. Dwyer, 110 La. 332, 34 South. 464. Fletcher v. Cavalier, 4 La. 268.

The proceeds of the sale were paid by the tutor to the minors on their attaining their majority, but without further explanation than that it was in settlement of the amount due them from their father’s estate, and without their knowing that it was for the proceeds of the sale of their property; and the contention is that by receiving said paymsnt they ratified the sale. As said in the cafie of Rist v. Hartner, 44 La. Ann. 378, 10 South. 760:

“The ratification of a transaction which is a nullity is a recognitive and confirmative act, and cannot be successfully passed, unless it is shown to have taken place with a full knowledge of the circumstances and formal intention to cure the radical vice contaminating it, and with which it is infected, by an unreserved sanction and approval.”

That acceptance of the proceeds of a sale does not operate a ratification, unless done with full knowledge, see Rocques’ Heirs v. Leveque’s Heirs, 110 La. 307, 34 South, 454; George v. Delaney, 111 La. 761, 35 South. 894.

Judgment affirmed.  