Hosea v. Davis
| Decision Date | 20 December 1904 |
| Citation | 39 So. 315,142 Ala. 211 |
| Parties | HOSEA v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Probate Court, Clarke County; John M. Wilson, Judge.
Proceeding by L. J. Davis, administrator of Irene Davis, deceased, for sale of lands to pay debts of estate. Beulah Davis, now Beulah Hosea, contested the proceedings, and appeals from an adverse judgment. Reversed.
Rehearing denied February 16, 1905.
The proceeding in this case was had by the administrator of the estate of Irene Davis, deceased, filing a petition asking to have certain lands, specifically described therein, sold for the payment of the debts of his intestate; it being averred in the petition that the said Irene Davis was at the time of her death the owner of a half interest in and to said lands. The petition was contested by the appellant, Beulah Hosea who was formerly Beulah Davis, and was a sister of the said Irene Davis. The contestant moved the court to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the estate of the said Irene Davis had no interest in said lands described in the petition. This motion was overruled. Upon the trial, it was shown that J. M. Davis, the father of Irene Davis and the contestant, died on the 20th day of March, 1895, and left surviving him a widow and children; that subsequently the widow died, as well as one surviving child, Irene Davis (the intestate of the petitioner), died, leaving Beulah Hosea, a surviving minor child; that at the time of the death of J. M Davis he owned other lands than his homestead; that the homestead had been set apart to Beulah Davis (now Beulah Hosea) as a homestead, and was occupied by her as such; and that she was at the time of the filing of the petition a minor. Upon the hearing of the evidence, the court granted the relief prayed for and ordered the property sold in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Davis & Gunn and W. D. Dunn, for appellant.
Lackland & Wilson, for appellee.
J. M Davis at the time of his death owned other lands in this state than his homestead. Hence section 2071, Code 1896--or rather the act of December 13, 1892--did not operate to vest title to his homestead in his widow and minor children. His estate has never been declared insolvent. Hence title was not vested in them under section 2069. They took no title to the land, but only the rights of use, occupancy, and the perception of rents, incomes, and profits "during the life...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Western Ry. of Alabama v. Russell
-
Jones v. Stokes
...the homestead, and her deed to him conveyed only that interest, and of consequence his interest ceased upon her death." In Hosea v. Davis, 142 Ala. 211, 39 So. 315, the seems to have assumed that section 2071 of the Code of 1896 and the act of December 13, 1892, were identical in operation ......