Higdon v. Higdon
| Decision Date | 29 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 96. |
| Citation | 243 Ala. 571,11 So.2d 140 |
| Parties | HIGDON v. HIGDON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wright & McFarland, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
A Leo Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal is from a decree overruling demurrers to a bill in equity. Two questions are presented. One is a question of jurisdiction.
The bill was filed on behalf of a minor, sixteen years of age, by her mother, as next friend, with the ultimate purpose of selling real estate for division among tenants in common at private sale. The bill avers that complainant, Alice Estell Higdon, a minor, is the owner of an undivided one-fifth interest in a described lot or parcel of real estate; that named respondents are adult owners of the other four-fifths interest, each owning an undivided one-fifth; that the property cannot be equitably divided in kind; that a private sale, evidenced by instrument in writing, has been negotiated, at a cash price, not greatly less than the full value of the property; that it is to the interest of all parties to consummate such sale. The bill invokes the jurisdiction of the court of equity to ratify and confirm the proposed sale and authorize complainant to join the adult tenants in common in executing a deed to the purchaser.
Title 47, Section 210, Code of 1940, empowers the probate court to sell for partition among tenants in common, and provides that application may be made by the guardian of a minor owning an interest as tenant in common. Title 47, Section 219 et seq. empowers a guardian to join other tenants in common in a sale of realty for division, publicly or privately, subject to confirmation or disaffirmance by the court having jurisdiction of the administration of the ward's estate.
Title 47, Section 186, Code of 1940, reads: "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."
Under the plenary powers thus conferred, a minor may sue in equity by next friend for the sale of lands for division between tenants in common. Trucks v. Sessions, 189 Ala. 149 66 So.79. This is not to say that if there be a guardian charged with a trust in the management of the ward's estate, drawn within the jurisdiction of the court administering the estate, such a bill by next friend in another court would be entertained. This situation does not appear from the bill in this cause and is not decided. The plenary power of a court of equity over the estate of an infant, deemed a ward of the court, when the jurisdiction of that court is duly invoked, is well established. The plenary jurisdiction of the equity court for the sale of lands for division being duly invoked by bill of the minor, suing by next friend, the infant becomes the ward of the court, invested with the power and duty to deal with his or her estate, as a tenant in common, in such manner as shall be to the best interest of the infant. We conclude the court of equity has jurisdiction to approve and confirm the private sale proposed, entering such decrees as will pass the title to the purchaser on payment of the purchase price, and will conserve the funds of the infant arising from the sale. McCreary v. Billing, 176 Ala. 314, 58 So. 311, Ann.Cas.1915A, 561; McWhorter v. Cox, 239 Ala. 441, 195 So. 435; First Nat'l Bank v. Robertson, 220 Ala. 654, 127 So. 221; Warren v. Southall, 224 Ala. 653, 141 So. 632; Taylor v. Fulghum, 206 Ala. 219, 89 So. 702; Roy v. Roy, 159 Ala. 555, 48 So. 793; Tolley v. Hamilton, 206 Ala. 634, 91 So. 610; Rucker v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., 176 Ala. 456, 472, 58 So. 465.
Another question is raised touching the title of the alleged tenants in common. They claim as devisees under the will of Alice S. Higdon, deceased. The bill discloses the following: On May 19, 1939, E.L. Higdon and Alice S. Higdon, his wife, executed their joint will, which reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Killian
...of the will indicate that the testator intended a lesser estate. Patterson v. First National Bank of Mobile, supra; Higdon v. Higdon, 243 Ala. 571, 574, 11 So.2d 140; Schowalter v. Schowalter, supra; Hatcher v. Rice, The applicable rule is thus stated in Patterson v. First National Bank, su......
-
Patterson v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
...is definitive of his estate and will be given effect in keeping with the intention of the testator, if not unlawful. Higdon v. Higdon, 243 Ala. 571(6), 11 So.2d 140. In Hatcher v. Rice, 213 Ala. 676, 105 So. 881, 883, the first paragraph of the will of the deceased wife gave to her husband ......
-
Wiggins Estate Co. v. Jeffery
...to the general supervision of courts of equity over minors and their property to their best interest. Later decisions are: Higdon v. Higdon, 243 Ala. 571, 11 So.2d 140; First National Bank of Birmingham v. DeJernett, Ala. 564, 159 So. 73. What, then, of appellant's rights in the premises to......
-
Cook v. Whitehead
...lands was by next friend rather than by guardian did not affect the validity of the decree rendered in that proceeding. Higdon v. Higdon, 243 Ala. 571, 11 So.2d 140; Trucks v. Sessions, 189 Ala. 149, 66 So. The principal theory of the bill in so far as it seeks relief against the respondent......