Hubbard v. Vredenburgh Sawmill Co., 1 Div. 735.
Decision Date | 22 December 1932 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 735. |
Parties | HUBBARD ET AL. v. VREDENBURGH SAWMILL CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
Bill to set aside a former decree by Laura Wiggins Hubbard and Lawrence Wiggins against the Vredenburgh Sawmill Company. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appointment of guardian ad litem in partition proceedings, for minors over 14 years old, held not void because made without notice to minors.
C. L Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellants.
Barnett Bugg, Lee & Jones, of Monroeville, for appellee.
The complainants, minors over fourteen years of age at the time and residents of Monroe county, Ala., were parties defendant to the proceedings on the equity docket of the circuit court of said county for a sale of the real estate here involved for partition and division among the joint owners thereof which culminated in a final decree of sale at which the defendant became the purchaser.
The bill seeks to have this former proceeding set aside, and held for naught so far as their interest in the property is concerned. Confessedly, upon their face the proceedings are entirely regular, but it is insisted they contain false recitals to the effect that these complainants, who were over fourteen years of age, were served with notice. A guardian ad litem to represent their interest was duly appointed accepted the duties of the office, and answered the bill. But it is argued that such appointment was void for the reason the minors had not in fact (though the proceedings state to the contrary) been served with notice. We consider the question to have been settled adversely to complainants' contentions by the case of Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507, where the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Henderson
...of the minors by a guardian ad litem, appointed by the court, renders the proceeding immune from such an attack as this. Hubbard v. Vredenburgh Sawmill Co., supra; Hamilton Tolley, supra. So that the guardian ad litem must either be appointed by the court or be otherwise authorized pursuant......
-
Rochelle v. Rochelle
... ... 451 237 Ala. 530 ROCHELLE v. ROCHELLE. 6 Div. 396.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 26, 1939 ... Thompson, 168 Ala. 367, 52 So. 951; Hubbard et al ... v. Vredenburgh Sawmill Co., 226 Ala ... ...
-
Alexander v. Alexander
... ... 322 ALEXANDER v. ALEXANDER et al. 8 Div. 455.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 5, 1933 ... Casey v. Sacks, supra; Hubbard v ... Vredenburgh Sawmill Co., 226 Ala. 54, 145 ... ...
-
Pearce v. Kennedy
... ... 805 232 Ala. 107 PEARCE v. KENNEDY. 7 Div. 352Supreme Court of AlabamaFebruary 27, 1936 ... Alexander, 227 Ala. 322, 150 So. 142; Hubbard v ... Vredenburgh Sawmill Co., 226 Ala. 54, 145 ... ...