Bethea v. Bethea
Citation | 136 Ala. 584,34 So. 28 |
Parties | BETHEA ET AL. v. BETHEA ET AL. |
Decision Date | 28 February 1903 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Bill by Kate Bethea and others against Theodore Bethea and others for partition. From an order denying an application to set aside a sale of the property, Theodore Bethea and another appeal. Affirmed.
At the sale the property was purchased by one of the defendants to the bill (Henry Bethea) for $9,500. Mamie and Theodore Bethea, parties to the suit, filed objections to the confirmation of the sale on the grounds (1) that the property sold at a price greatly disproportioned to its real value (2) that at a resale largely more than $9,500 would be bid for the property by a solvent purchaser; (3) that a portion of the property in which the parties were interested was not included in the decree of sale. Fourteen witnesses were examined in support of these objections, who valued the property at various sums, ranging from $11,000 to $16,650. Ten of these witnesses were real estate agents in the city of Montgomery. The evidence showed that a guaranty had been filed by a solvent person that the property would bring at resale at least $10,000, and that she had instructed her agent to bid that much at the sale.
Watts Troy & Coffey, for appellants.
Elmore & Elmore, for appellees.
We approve the reasoning and concur in the conclusions of the learned judge who tried this case. We are satisfied to adopt as the opinion of this court the opinion accompanying the decree, and copied into the transcript, and which is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spence v. Spence, 5 Div. 296.
...... to bid a much larger sum at a resale. Glennon v. Mittenight, 86 Ala. 455, 5 So. 772; Bethea v. Bethea, 136 Ala. 584, 34 So. 28; DeLoach v. White, 202 Ala. 429, 80 So. 813; Schloss-Sheffield. S. & I. Co. v. Borden, 201 Ala. 628, 79 So. ......
-
Martin v. Jones, 3 Div. 814
...the amounts realized. Sieben v. Torrey, supra; Campbell v. Carter, supra; Taylor v. Wilson, supra; Littell v. Zuntz, supra; Bethea v. Bethea, 136 Ala. 584, 34 So. 28. In the light of authorities adverted to above we must hold that appellants have failed to sustain their claims of Affirmed. ......
-
Roy v. O'Neill
...Am. Dec. 415; Helena Coal Co. v. Sibley, 132 Ala. 651, 654, 32 So. 718; Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202, 220. The case of Bethea v. Bethea, 136 Ala. 584, 34 So. 28, was a bill for sale for partition among joint owners, and court does not state distinctly whether the above principle governs,......
-
Campbell v. Carter
...render judicial sales generally unstable, thereby resulting in discouraging bidders and diminishing the amounts realized. Bethea v. Bethea, 136 Ala. 584, 34 So. 28; 35 C.J. 105, § This general principle cannot be overlooked in sales for distribution in the progress of the administration of ......