530 ARTICLE 16.

Generally.

A judicial sale will be upheld collaterally if jurisdictional facts are proven, al-
though a jurisdictional allegation in the bill is lacking—see art. 5, secs. 30 and 31.
Bill demurrable. The whole theory of this section is that parties in being represent
persons unborn. An infant party to a suit is not more bound than those unborn,
by representation. Beggs v. Erb, 138 Md. 350.

When a trustee has an implied power of sale under a will, the validity of a sale
by him is not affected by the fact that he applies for a decree under this section
instead of acting under the will. Under this section, it must appear 'that the sale
was advantageous to the parties at the time of the decree. A decree authorizing
sales to be made from time to time upon application to be thereafter made to the
court, does not conform to this section. Preston v. Safe Deposit Co., 116 Md. 214.

Under this section a court of equity, with all interested parties before it, may
decree the sale of any kind of an estate. This section held applicable, if facts
justify it, to property held as tenants by entireties where the property has been
injured by fire. Masterman v. Masterman, 129 Md. 179. And see Brell v. Brell,
143 Md. 450.

Apart from this section equity has no authority to decree a sale of title of un-
born remaindermen. A portion of the proceeds of the sale maynot be reserved
from the reinvestment prescribed by this section for distribution at once to life
tenant. This section does not admit of a present money payment in lieu of a life
interest. Denson v. Denson, 125 Md. 359.

This section referred to in upholding the power of trustees to sell property under
a power of sale in a will, irrespective of whether that particular property had been
held by the testator in his lifetime. Carter v. Mullin, 123 Md. 329.

Exceptions to the title of property sold under this section, overruled. Stewart v.
Kreuzer, 127 Md. 4.

Primary purpose of this section. This section extends the doctrine of representa-
tion to the cases therein mentioned by providing that the parties in being shall
represent unborn parties. The constitutionality of this section has never been
called in question, and it confers upon equity jurisdiction which it did not there-
tofore have. Kingan Packing Assn. v. Lloyd, 110 Md. 623.

Under this section a farm devised to the wife and children of L., upon which
a charge is made for the support of L. and his family, during life, may be sold.
Disposition of proceeds. Object of this section. The fact that the will shows an
intention that the life tenant shall hold a farm for the benefit. of himself and
family, does not defeat the application of this section. Downes v. Long, 79 Md. 384.

A bill under this section on behalf of an infant should be filed in infant's name,
but its being filed in the name of guardian is an irregularity which, as long as it
stands unreversed, does not affect the binding nature of the decree. Where a pur-
chaser appeals from an order ratifying the sale, the decree directing the sale is
not open for review. Where the court has jurisdiction the question of the proof
that the sale was advantageous, will not be inquired into upon purchaser's appeal.
Newbold v. Schlens, 66 Md. 587.

If the court has jurisdiction, mere irregularities in proceedings or proof, will not
sustain exceptions to the sale by the purchaser. Benson v. Yellott, 76 Md. 168;
Rieman v. Von Kapff, 76 Md. 421; Newbold v. Schlens, 66 Md. 587.

This section held to afford the only means f or a sale of ground-rents devised for
life, with remainders over. Murphy v. Coale, 107 Md. 209.

In a proper case, equity will decree a sale under, this section for the purpose of
using the proceeds to compromise litigation. Caldwell v. Brown, 66 Md. 296.

For cases holding that the plaintiff had no such interest in the property as en-
abled him to ask for a sale under this section, see Bannon v. Comegys, 69 Md. 418;
Newbold v. Schlens, 66 Md. 589.

Unborn children and grandchildren held to be bound, along with parties in being,
under the act of 1862, ch. 156. Dunnington v. Evans, 79 Md. 91. And see Benson v.
Yellott, 76 Md. 169.

For cases involving the law on the subject of this section prior to its adoption,
see Long v. Long, 62 Md. 33; Downin v. Sprecher, 35 Md. 479; Ball v. Safe De-
posit Co., 92 Md. 506. Cf. Seeger v. Hunting, 78 Md. 54.

Cited but not construed in Carlin v. Harris, 100 Md. 56; Hyatt v. Vanneck, 82
Md. 474; Roche v. Waters, 72 Md. 272; Long v. Long, 62 Md. 67 (see also dis-
senting opinion, page 85); Druid, etc., Co. v. Oettinger, 53 Md. 63; Shreve v.
Shreve, 43 Md. 403; Goldsborough v. Martin, 41 Md. 505.

See notes to sec. 233.