
    W. P. Crippen, Adm’r, v. Sarah P. Crippen, et al.
    
    1. Practice. Service of process upon infant defendants. In a proceeding by an administrator, to sell land or slaves for the payment of debts, there must he service of process upon infant heirs. The answer of the guardian, ad litem, will not give jurisdiction.
    2. Same. Administrators and executors. Sale of slaves to pay debts. Act of 1827, eh. 01, $ 2. A hill or petition by an administrator to sell slaves for the payment of debts, must he sworn to.
    3. Same. Same. Same. Act of 1789, ch. 23, $ 4. Upon a hill by an administrator, to sell land or slaves for the payment of debts, an account should he had with the administrator, exhibiting the full condition of the administration as to the assets received, or which should have been received; and of all debts and charges upon the estate paid by him, and of all outstanding debts established by legal proofs, before a decree of sale is granted; and only so much should be sold as may seem necessary to pay what is legally due under said account.
    FROM KNOX.
    This was a bill filed by the complainant as administrator of the estate of John E. Orippen, deceased, to sell the land and slaves of said estate for the payment of debts. At the July Term, 1858, Chancellor Lucky gave a decree authorizing the sale, from which the widow and heirs appealed.
    Trigg, Temple and Hall, for complainant.
    Baxter and Arnold, for the defendant.
   Wright, J.,

delivered .the opinion of the Court.

This record does not come collaterally, but directly, before ns upon a writ of error. The land and slaves have not been sold, and there is no question with the purchaser. Matters of error, as well as of jurisdiction, are open for decision.

The decree of the Chancellor is erroneous.

1st. James L. Crippen, one of the infant heirs of John E. Crippen, deceased, was not served with process, and is not before the Court. The answer of the guardian ad litem does not give the Court jurisdiction.

2d. The bill or petition being for the sale of slaves, to pay debts, should have been sworn to, under the act of 1827, ch. 61, § 2, (C. and N. Rev., 83,) 1 Meigs’ Dig., 29.

3d. Before a decree was had to sell land or slaves, to pay debts, there should have been an account with the administrator of the assets of the estate received by him, or which he ought to have received, and of such bona fide debts and charges upon the estate as he may have paid; so as to enable the Court to have proper evidence before it of the necessity of the sale of the slaves or lands to pay the remaining debts.

4th. There should also have been an account and report as to the remaining bona fide debts and charges outstanding against the estate. And these should have been established, by proper evidence, to the satisfaction of the Chancellor, rejecting all such claims as appeared to be involved, or barred by the act of 1789, ch. 23, §. 4, (C. & N. Rev., 75).

This was the more especially necessary in this case, because it appears that nearly four years have elapsed since the grant of administration; and this act of As-is the administrator and the Courts; and the heirs and distributees are entitled to the full benefit of it, in order to protect the land and slaves inherited by them from their ancestor against unjust demands.

The Court should sell only so many of the slaves, or so much of the land, as may be necessary to pay the debts; and to act intelligibly, it is manifest they must first be ascertained.

We reverse and set aside the decree of the Chancellor, and remand the cause to the Chancery Court, for such further proceedings as may he proper in the case. !EThis reversal is not intended to disturb the decree or proceedings under the cross-bill.  