Long v. Long
Decision Date | 13 January 1916 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 236 |
Citation | 70 So. 733,195 Ala. 560 |
Parties | LONG et al. v. LONG et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; Henry B. Foster, Judge.
Bill by Ida Long and others against J.T. Long and others. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Henry A. Jones, of Tuscaloosa, and C.H. Penick, of Phoenix, Ariz for appellants.
James Rice, of Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
Appellees and appellants are heirs at law of W.T. Long, deceased, and the bill is filed by the former against the latter for the purpose of obtaining a sale of certain lands described in the bill, for partition or division, which lands, it is alleged the said ancestor owned at the time of his death. It is alleged, also, that there are no outstanding debts of said estate, and that no necessity exists for an administration thereof, and proper averments are made that the lands cannot be equitably partitioned or divided among said tenants in common without a sale. The bill further shows that said W.T Long, in November, 1913, executed a conveyance to a portion of said lands (100 acres) to respondent J.T. Long, and in December, 1913, a conveyance of another 100 acres to respondent W.C. Long, copies of which deeds are made exhibits to the bill.
Mental weakness and infirmity on the part of said W.T. Long is alleged, and there is also entered a denial that the consideration named in either deed was paid to the grantor. It is then averred that the grantees were of strong and domineering character, and that they took advantage of the mental weakness of the grantor, procuring their deeds to said lands through the exercise of an undue influence over him and for a grossly inadequate consideration. A cancellation of these deeds is sought, but it is insisted that this cannot be had, as complainants are not in possession. The prime object of the bill is to obtain a sale of the lands described therein, for division among tenants in common, and the cancellation of these deeds is only incidental, and designed to make the partition more effective. The following quotation from Brown v. Feagin, 174 Ala. 438, 57 So. 20, is applicable here:
See also section 5232, Code 1907.
It also appears from the bill that after the death of W.T. Long the widow conveyed her dower interest to one of the complainants for a valuable consideration; and the bill seeks to have the value of said dower interest paid to the grantee of said widow. Under the provisions of sections 2647, 2648, Code 1907, the dower interest of the widow may with her consent be sold, and the value of the same paid to her out of the proceeds of the sale. No reason appears, therefore, against the course here...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. Federal Land Bank
...defendant. Mallory v. Walton, 81 So. 113, 119 Miss. 396; White v. Lefoldt, 28 So. 818, 78 Miss. 173; Schuler v. Murphy, 44 So. 810; Long v. Long, 70 So. 733; Williams v. City of St. Petersburg, 48 So. 754, Fla. 544; Murrell v. Peterson, 49 So. 31, 57 Fla. 480; Samuels v. Parsons, 83 So. 548......
-
Wood v. Barnett
... ... De Ramus, 205 Ala. 219, 87 ... So. 354; Musgrove v. Aldridge, supra; Bidwell v ... Johnson, 191 Ala. 195, 67 So. 985; Long v ... Long, 195 Ala. 560, 70 So. 733 ... Some ... reference is made in argument to what is termed a ... "blank" in the first line of ... ...
-
Ellis v. Stickney
...35 So.2d 91; Grisham et al. v. Grisham et al., supra. The bill is not multifarious. Thompson v. Heiter et al., supra; Long v. Long et al., 195 Ala. 560, 70 So. 733. suit involves a 360-acre tract of land in Hale County acquired in 1871 by Taul Hobson and five of his sons. Taul Hobson and th......
-
Phillips v. Smith
... ... McGrath, 30 So. 792, 128 Ala. 175; Wood v ... Barnett, 94 So. 338, 208 Ala. 295; Betts v ... Ward, 72 So. 110, 196 Ala. 248; Long v. Long, ... 70 So. 733, 195 Ala. 560, 561; Brown v. Feagin, 57 ... So. 20, 174 Ala. 438, 443 ... Appellee ... claims title through a ... ...