Lucky v. Roberts
Decision Date | 12 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 626. |
Parties | LUCKY v. ROBERTS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1924.
Appeal from Probate Court, Morgan County; L. P. Troup, Judge.
Petition of Juria Roberts to have lands set apart to her as a homestead, and contest by Lucy Lucky. From a decree for petitioner contestant appeals. Affirmed.
W. H Long, of Decatur, for appellant.
W. W Callahan, of Decatur, for appellee.
The submission was on motion and on merits. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions is based on the failure to set out consecutively the interrogatories propounded under the statute and the answers thereto. It is averred that questions of fact are thus obscured. However, the real issues are apparent. The motion is overruled.
The residence in this state of a decedent husband, at the time of his death, is the statutory prerequisite to give the right of homestead to the widow and the minor child or children of such decedent. Talmadge's Adm'r v. Talmadge, 66 Ala. 199; Curry v. Barnes, 200 Ala. 256, 76 So 22; Johns v. Cannon, 199 Ala. 144, 74 So. 42.
It is established in this jurisdiction that a person's domicile is that place in which his habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing (Merrill's Heirs v. Morrissett, 76 Ala. 433), and it embraces (1) the fact of residence (Curry v. Barnes, supra) and (2) the intention to remain (Young v. Pollak, 85 Ala. 439, 5 So. 279; State v. Hallett, 8 Ala. 159; Glover v. Glover, 18 Ala. 367. It has been further declared that for the purpose of succession (a) a person can have but one domicile (Merrill's Heirs v. Morrisett, supra; Allgood v. Williams, 92 Ala. 551, 8 So. 722; Johns v. Cannon, supra; Curry v. Barnes, supra), and (b) when once acquired is presumed to continue until a new one is gained facto et animo (Glover v. Glover, supra; State v. Hallett, supra; Bragg v. State, 69 Ala. 204), and (c) what state of facts constitute a change of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact (Murphy v. Hunt, Miller & Co., 75 Ala. 438).
In Ex parte Pearson, 76 Ala. 523, 524, 525, 526, it is declared:
Thus are the conditions of residence, relation, and dependence well stated, and given application by our court. Merrill's Heirs v. Morrissett, 76 Ala. 433; Chamboredon v. Fayet, 176 Ala. 211, 57 So. 845; Griffin v. Griffin, 185 Ala. 198, 64 So. 350.
The case of Johns v. Cannon, supra, contains the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. Kinney
...8 So. 546; Young v. Pollak, 85 Ala. 439, 5 So. 279; Merrill's [Heirs] v. Morrissett (76 Ala. 433), supra.' "See, also, Lucky v. Roberts, 211 Ala. 578, 100 So. 878; Talmadge's Adm'r v. Talmadge, 66 Ala. Frederick v. Wilbourne, 198 Ala. 137, 73 So. 442; Black v. Pate, 136 Ala. 601, 607, 34 So......
-
Horwitz v. Kirby
...facto et animo, and what state of facts constitutes a change of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact. Lucky v. Roberts, 211 Ala. 578, 580, 100 So. 878, 879 [ (1924) ], and cases cited.“One who asserts a change of domicile has the burden of establishing it. Caldwell v. Pollak, 91 Ala......
-
Mordecai v. Scott
...802, 807 (1974); Thompson v. Bryant, 251 Ala. 566, 38 So.2d 590 (1949). The survivors need not be Alabama residents, Lucky v. Roberts, 211 Ala. 578, 100 So. 878 (1924), although the statute (Section 661) does require that the decedent reside in Alabama at the time of his death. Matthews v. ......
-
Ex parte Weissinger
... ... what state of facts constitutes a change of domicile is a ... mixed question of law and fact. Lucky v. Roberts, ... 211 Ala. 578, 580, 100 So. 878, 879, and cases cited ... One ... who asserts a change of domicile has the burden of ... ...