Memphis Stone & Gravel Co. v. Archer

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SMITH, C. J.
• Citation: Memphis Stone & Gravel Co. v. Archer, 120 Miss. 453, 82 So. 315 (Miss. 1919)
• Decision Date: 14 July 1919
• Docket Number: 20788
• Parties: MEMPHIS STONE & GRAVEL CO. ET AL. v. ARCHER

82 So. 315

120 Miss. 453

MEMPHIS STONE & GRAVEL CO. ET AL. v. ARCHER

No. 20788

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 14, 1919

Division A

APPEAL from the chancery court of Tishomingo county, HON. A. J MCINTYRE, Chancellor.

Suit by Johnnie Archer against the Memphis Stone & Gravel Company. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed and remanded.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

This is an appeal from a decree ordering the sale of certain land for a partition and an accounting by the appellant to the appellee for the use thereof. In 1902, J. H. Archer died leaving the appellee, who was then about four years old, as his sole heir at law. The only estate left by him was an undivided one-third interest in the land here in controversy which seems to have been unoccupied and yielded no revenue. The other two-third interest in the land was owned by J. L. Archer, the father of J. H. Archer, and by Jas. M. Archer, his brother. J. H. Archer incurred during his last illness a debt of one hundred and forty-three dollars for drugs and medical attention, and his burial expense amounted to twenty-five dollars making a total of one hundred and sixty-eight dollars for the payment of which he left only his interest in the land here in controversy. These accounts were paid by J. L. Archer, after obtaining a deduction therefrom of fifty dollars. The appellee was taken into the home of her grandfather, J. L. Archer, who supported her thereafter until his death, which occurred some years later. In 1905, the appellee then being about seven years old, a petition was filed in the court below by J. L. and Jas. M. Archer and the appellee, who sued by her next friend, J. L. Archer, alleging in substance the foregoing facts, and that the land was worth not exceeding six hundred dollars, could not be equitably divided in kind, and that a sale of the appellee's interest therein was necessary in order to obtain funds for her support, and prayed that a commissioner be appointed for that purpose. The prayer of this petition was granted, the commissioner appointed, and a sale which was made pursuant to the decree was reported to and confirmed by the court. The purchaser at this sale was J. L. Archer, the appellee's grandfather by whom she joined in the petition for the sale of the land as her next friend. The price paid was one hundred and eighty-seven dollars. The decree confirming the sale recited:

"It further appearing to the court that the price bid and paid on said land was adequate and no objection being filed it is ordered by the clerk that the said commissioner be and he is hereby directed to make a deed of conveyance to the said purchaser of said land.

"And it further appearing to the court that the custody, maintenance, and support of the said minor Archer devolves upon its parental grandparent, J. L. Archer, and that the proceeds of the sale of said land the share of said minor is less than two hundred dollars, and it further appearing to the court that the said J. L. Archer is a proper and discreet person for the receipt of said minor's money:

"It is ordered and adjudged and decreed by the court that the said P. W. Patterson, after first paying all court costs, fees, and commissions incurred in this behalf to pay the remainder thereof to the said J. L. Archer and on filing of this receipt for the same with the papers in this cause."

The appellant now claims the land through mesne conveyances to its grantor from J. L. and Jas. M. Archer. The land has increased very much in value since the sale of the appellee's interest therein, because of the discovery of Mercantable gravel thereon; the appellant being engaged in removing and selling the same.

In November, 1917, the appellee, who was then twenty years old and whose disabilities of minority had just been removed, exhibited her bill against the appellant alleging in substance the foregoing facts, and, in addition to other things not necessary to be set forth, as they have no bearing on the point...