Sale of infant's lands. It is probable that the English court of chancery did not have the inherent original power to order the sale of minors' lands ; 2 Ves. 23; 1 Moll. 525. But, with the acquiescence of parliament, it claims and exercises that right for the pur pose of maintaining and educating the ward. This power is not conceded as belonging to our courts of chancery in this country by virtue of their equity jurisdiction, nor to our probate courts as custodians of minors; Rog ers v. Dill, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 415 ; 2 Kent 229 a. It must be derived from some statute author ity ; Woodward v. Donally, 27 Ala. 198; Field v. Sehieffelin, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 154, 11 Am. Dec. 441; Ellis v. Merrimack Bridge, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 243. There being no inher ent authority in a guardian by virtue of his office to convey lands of his wards, a deed by him will not, in the absence of evidence of showing his authority, convey any title; House v. Brent, 69 Tex. 27, 7 S. W. 65.
It has been a much-disputed question whether an infant's lands can be sold by special act of the legislature. On the ground that the state is the supreme guardian of infants, this power of the legislature has been sustained where the object was the education and support of the infant ; Mc Comb v. Gilkey, 29 Miss. 146; Mason v. Wait, 5 Ill. 127 ; Cochran v. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 365, 32 Am. Dee. 570; Doe v. Doug lass, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 10, 44 Am. Dec. 732; Rice v. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326. See Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U. S. 613, 26 L. Ed. 585 ; Thom as v. Pullis, 56 Mo. 211. So it has been sus tained where the sale was merely advanta geous to his interest ; Dorsey v. Gilbert, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 87; Estep v. Hutchman, 14
S. & R. (Pa.) 435. There has been some opposition on the ground that it is an en croachment on the judiciary ; 4 N. H. 565, 574 ; Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 59, 30 Am. Dec. 430. Such sales have been sustained where the object was to the ancestor's debts ; Libby v. Chitwood's Adm'r, 4 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 95, 16 Am. Dec. 143. This has been considered questionable in the extreme; Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 59, 30 Am. Dec. 430 ; contra, Davenport v. Young, 16 Ill. 548, 63 Am. Dec. 320. It has also been exercised in the case of idiots and lunatics, and sustained on the same reasons as in the case of infants; Davison v. Johonnot, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 388, 41 Am. Dec. 448.
A ward's title to land passes by his guard ian's deed therefor, and not by the confirma tion of the sale by the court ; Scarf v. Al drich, 97 Cal. 360, 32 Pac. 324, 33 Am. St. Rep. 190.
By statute, there are also guardians for the insane and for spendthrifts; Sternbergh v. Schoolcraft, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 153; Alex ander v. Alexander, 8 Ala. 796; Raymond v. Wyman, 18 Me. 385 ; McCrillis v. Bartlett, 8 N. H. 569; Mason v, Mason, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 506. This guardian is sometimes designated as the committee ; Schoul. Dom. Rel. 389. A guardian to a lunatic cannot be appointed till after a writ de Lunatic° inquirendo; Es lava v. Lepretre, 21 Ala. 504, 56 Am. Dec. 266. An order removing a guardian is equiv alent to an order to pay over the money in his hands to his successor ; Finney v. State, 9 Mo. 227. In some states the court is au thorized to revoke for non-residence of the guardian; id. See HABITUAL DRUNKARD.