Perkins & Co. v. Woodfolk. because he was heir at law as well as judgment creditor, he might not for himself and the widow and heirs of his father, purchase the rights and claims of creditors having liens upon the land; or as such judgment creditor redeem from them, holding the land as any other redeeming creditor would hold it. The result is, we are of opinion, that the chancellor's decree was correct, and affirm it with costs. W. M. PERKINS & Co. v. W. W. WOODFOLK. 1. VENDITIONI EXPONAS. Error in teste. Practice in Supreme Court. An error merely clerical in the teste of process will not vitiate, as where a venditioni exponas issued from this court bearing teste first Monday of December, 1875, instead of first Monday of January, 1876, especially after a sale has been made. Such errors upon application will be remedied. 2. JUDICIAL NOTICE. Change of term time. This court will take judicial notice of the death of one of its clerks and appointment of another, as well as a change in the time of meeting by the Legislature. FROM JACKSON. Motion in Supreme Court to correct venditioni ex ponas. W. F. COOPER and THOMAS H. MALONE for complainants. CAMPBELL, GUILD and SMITH for defendant. Perkins & Co. v. Woodfolk. MCFARLAND, J., delivered the opinion of the court. On the 13th of October, 1875, an execution from this court was, by the sheriff of Jackson county, levied on certain land of the defendant. The execution was in pursuance of a judgment of this court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs on the 10th of May, 1875. It was returned without a sale. On the 20th of January, 1876, during the present term of our court, a venditioni exponas issued to the sheriff of Jackson county, which has been returned, showing that after due advertisement and notice, the land was sold on the 14th of March, 1876, and purchased by B. A. Sheppard and S. M. Swanson. It now appears that the venditioni exponas above referred to issued on the 20th of January last, was erroneously vested. It bears teste the first Monday of December, 1875, and is signed by W. M. Fleming, clerk, whereas the first day of the term preceding its issuance was the first Monday of January, 1876, and on the day of the issuance of the venditioni exponas J. B. Childress was appointed and qualified as clerk of this court. An application is now made in behalf of the purchasers, who are the beneficial owners of the judgment, either to correct these or supposed errors in the process, so as to remove doubts that might otherwise arise as to the title, or that the process and proceedings thereunder be quashed and new process awarded. There can be no doubt that their motion, either in the one form. or the other, should be allowed. 31-VOL. 8. Perkins & Co. v. Woodfolk. We think the errors were merely clerical and made by inadvertence. The terms of this court formerly began the first Mondays of December. The last Legislature changed the terms to the first Mondays of January. The present is the first term held under the new law. The clerk in making out the process followed the old form. By the death of F. C. Dunnington, former clerk of this court, within the last year, W. M. Fleming, his deputy, was left the acting clerk, and so continued until the appointment of J. B. Childress, as before stated. Since the beginning of the present term, and on the day the process in question was issued, since the appointment of Childress, Fleming has again been appointed and acting as deputy clerk. These facts, which we judicially recognize, fully account for the inadvertencies appearing upon the face of the process referred to, if indeed there was any material error at all. We think the process is not void, and even after the sale it is proper to direct the correction to be made. See Herman on Executions, p 55-6. Bennett v. Coldwell. Jos. D. BENNETT AND WIFE et al. v. JOHN C. 1. ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE. COLDWELL. When void. Purchaser's rights under. In the case of a void sale by an administrator, the purchaser of land at such sale, belonging to the estate, will be substituted only to the rights of the creditors whose debts were paid by his money. 2. SAME. Same. Waste by administrator. If the administrator has wasted the estate, he and the securities on his bond are liable to the creditors to the extent of the waste, and not the land of the heirs. This is so even if both the administrator and his securities are insolvent. The loss falls upon the creditors. 3. SAME. Same. Heirs not security. The law does not make the heirs securities for the administrator, nor make their rights dependent upon the integrity or negligence of the administrator. Case cited: Martin v. Turner, 2 Heis., 384, reviewed. 4. SAME. Same. Dower. When the widow is the administratrix in such case, if she has not claimed any dower interest, and never had any set apart for her, the purchaser will not be entitled to relief out of the land to the extent of dower interest. FROM BEDFORD. Appeal from the Chancery Court. JNO. R. STEELE, Chancellor. WISENER & SON AND COWDEN for complainants. LEA, Sp. J., delivered the opinion of the court. John D. Johnson died in 1860, intestate, and at the August term, 1860, of the County Court of Bed Bennett v. Coldwell. ford county, W. E. Johnson and Mary A. Johnson were appointed and qualified as administrator and administratrix of his estate. Sometime thereafter W. E. Johnson, the administrator, died, and the administration of the estate then devolved upon Mary A. Johnson, the administratrix, who was the widow of the intestate. The said John D. Johnson left surviving him several children, his heirs at law, who are complainants in this bill. The said Johnson, at his death, had a large personal estate, and was the owner of a house and lot in the town of Shelbyville. On the 23d day of April, 1863, Mary A. Johnson, the administratrix, sold the house and lot to the defendant, John C. Coldwell, for $4,400, in Confederate treasury notes, and executed a bond to procure title to be made to Coldwell by the County Court of Bedford county, which has never been done. The heirs of John D. Johnson file their bill in April, 1870, to set aside this sale as void, to put them in possession, and for an account for rents. To this bill defendant Coldwell files a demurrer, which being overruled, he files an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, making the complainants in the original bill and Mary A. Johnson, defendants, in which the sale of the house and lot by Mrs. Johnson is admitted. But he alleges that one Cummings had an account against the estate of John D. Johnson, upon which suit had been brought in the Circuit Court of Bedford county for about $3,200, and that upon the sale of the property by Mrs. Johnson, she paid |