Berry v. Berry, 4 Div. 899
Decision Date | 09 May 1957 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 899 |
Citation | 95 So.2d 798,266 Ala. 252 |
Parties | Carrie BERRY v. Louis BERRY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
C. L. Rowe, Elba, for appellant.
John C. Walters, Troy, for appellees.
The question presented is whether the equity court of a county in which is situated some of the land sought to be sold for division of proceeds among joint owners may validly order the sale of a separate and distinct tract of land owned by the same joint owners which is located in another county.
The power of a court of equity in this state to sell jointly owned lands for division of proceeds among the joint owners is statutory. Hall v. Hall, 250 Ala. 702, 35 So.2d 681; Sandlin v. Anders, 210 Ala. 396, 98 So. 299; Donnor v. Quartermas, 90 Ala. 164, 8 So. 715; Lyon v. Powell, 78 Ala. 351. Section 186, Title 47, Code 1940, provides: 'The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction to divide or partition, or sell for partition, any property, real or personal, held by joint owners or tenants in common; whether the defendant denies the title of complainant or sets up adverse possession or not; and the court in exercising its jurisdiction shall proceed according to its own practices in equity cases.' The provisions just quoted are in all material respects the same as the provisions of Act No. 123, approved August 25, 1909, General and Local Acts, Special Session, 1909, p. 124. For a discussion of the history of the legislation leading up to the passage of the 1909 Act, supra, and the changes brought about by that act, see Sandlin v. Anders, supra. It is by virtue of the statute, the provisions of which we have quoted above, that an equity court now has original jurisdiction to sell lands for division. Drake v. Drake, 262 Ala. 609, 80 So.2d 268. But as indicated above, an equity court has no inherent jurisdiction to order the sale of lands for division. Hoffman v. Jordan, 263 Ala. 23, 81 So.2d 546.
Neither § 186, Title 47, supra, nor any other statute in this state makes express provision for an equity court of one county to order the sale for division of lands located in another county whether the lands in the two counties are contiguous or constitute separate tracts. However, there is no statute saying that an equity court may not do so.
But we have said 'that the power of a court of equity to sell for division is tied in with section 210, Title 47, Code * * *' Hall v. Hall, supra [250 Ala. 702, 35 So.2d 683]. Section 210, Title 47, Code 1940, reads:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The words which we have italicized above were added to the provisions codified as § 5222, Code 1907, by an act approved September 29, 1923, General Acts 1923, p. 659. The 1923 Act, supra, followed our case of Pollard v. Jackson, 204 Ala. 31, 85 So. 431, decided in 1920, wherein we held that the provisions of § 5222, Code 1907, did not authorize the probate court of a county in which a part of the land was located to direct the sale of a separate tract of land situate in another county.
In the case of Clark v. Smith, 191 Ala. 166, 67 So. 1000, decided in 1915, this court held that the chancery court of Jefferson County was without jurisdiction to entertain a bill for the sale of lands all of which were located in Bibb County. In that case it was pointed out that § 3093 of the Code of 1907, the provisions of which are now codified as § 294 of Title 7, Code 1940, which provisions relate to the county in which a bill in equity must be filed, had no application, saying in part: '* * * the particular jurisdiction under inquiry is governed by the statutory system provided for the sale of lands for division among joint owners or tenants in common.'
It is apparent from a reading of the opinion in the case of Clark v. Smith, supra, that the 'statutory system' to which reference was there made was that which resulted from a consideration of the statutory provisions which relate not only to the equity court but to the probate court. The opinion discloses that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copeland v. Giles, 6 Div. 552
...jurisdiction to order the sale of lands for division among the joint owners; that the power to do so is statutory. Borry v. Berry, 266 Ala. 252, 254, 95 So.2d 798; Hoffman v. Jordan, 263 Ala. 23, 27, 81 So.2d 546; Hall v. Hall, 250 Ala. 702, 705, 35 So.2d 681; Sandlin v. Anders, 210 Ala. 39......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...decree is final insofar as it will support an appeal. Three illustrations of our entertaining appeals from such decrees are Berry v. Berry, 266 Ala. 252, 95 So.2d 798; Coppett v. Monahan, 267 Ala. 572, 103 So.2d 169; Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465. We have also held that the dec......
-
Green v. Daughtrey, No. 2040271 (AL 7/22/2005), 2040271.
...is final insofar as it will support an appeal. Three illustrations of our entertaining appeals from such decrees are Berry v. Berry, 266 Ala. 252, 95 So. 2d 798 [(1957)]; Coppett v. Monahan, 267 Ala. 572, 103 So. 2d 169 [(1958)]; Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So. 2d 465 [(1964)]. We have......
-
Sexton v. Sexton, 6 Div. 237
...decree is final insofar as it will support an appeal. Three illustrations of our entertaining appeals from such decrees are Berry v. Berry, 266 Ala. 252, 95 So.2d 798; Coppett v. Monahan, 267 Ala. 572, 103 So.2d 169; Raper v. Belk, 276 Ala. 370, 162 So.2d 465. We have also held that the dec......