Seamon v. Tatum

Decision Date18 January 1945
Docket Number3 Div. 417.
Citation20 So.2d 596,246 Ala. 310
PartiesSEAMON et al. v. TATUM.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Grady Reynolds and Reynolds & Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellants.

Geo M. Taylor, Jr., of Prattville, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

A bill in equity was filed by P. K. Tatum against his nine brothers and sisters, to sell for division 120 acres of land owned by the father W. P. Tatum at the time of his death on August 1 1928. A cross bill was filed by the five appellants and one sister which sought to sell an additional forty acres for division between the joint owners and in the cross bill it is alleged that the additional forty acres also belonged to the father at the time of his death. The only dispute in the case as to the land is with reference to the forty acres brought in question by the cross bill.

Martha J. Tatum, the wife of W. P. Tatum, survived him. In 1892 W P. Tatum deeded the forty acres in dispute to his wife Martha J. Tatum, and in 1936 she deeded said forty acre tract to P. K. Tatum. However, Martha J. Tatum, the mother, lived on said forty acres for more than twenty years and died thereon on October 21, 1942.

After the death of W. P. Tatum in 1928 the one hundred and twenty acres of land described in the bill of complaint were set aside to the widow Martha J. Tatum in a proceeding in the Probate Court of Autauga County under her dower and homestead rights. The forty acres of land described in the cross bill were not involved in this proceeding.

There was no dispute or contest between the parties as to the original one hundred and twenty acres of land described in the bill of complaint and the court promptly and properly granted the relief prayed for in the original bill and ordered the one hundred and twenty acres of land sold for division among the joint owners. The court in the same decree denied the relief prayed for in the cross bill and dismissed it.

Mr. Rice represented six of the respondents in the cause and was in life at the time the first decree in the cause was rendered on October 19, 1943. He prepared the appeal bond from the first decree which was approved and filed on October 27, 1943, the day of his death.

Notwithstanding the appeal, the register proceeded to carry into effect the decree rendered on October 19, 1943, advertised, and sold the one hundred and twenty acres in accordance with that decree.

Counsel for appellants find no fault with that part of the decree dismissing the cross bill eliminating from the sale the forty acres of land described in the cross bill. The facts as to the title to the forty acres are shown by evidence in the cause. It is shown that in 1892 W. P. Tatum the father was the owner of the forty acres and other lands not involved in this suit, and duly conveyed all the property of every kind he owned to his wife Martha J. Tatum. Through some error in assessment of taxes this forty acres of land (SE-1/4 of SW-1/4 of Section 33, Township 19, Range 16, Autauga County, Alabama) in 1923 was sold for taxes as the property of 'Owner Unknown' and was purchased by W. C. Bazzell and A. C. McCrary. The appellants sought to establish title to the forty acres in question in W. P. Tatum through this tax proceeding. The purchasers of the tax title conveyed the forty acres in question to W. P. Tatum on September 16, 1926, and said forty acres were assessed by W. P. Tatum through 1928, the date of his death. Martha J. Tatum, the wife, assessed the property from 1929 to 1942, inclusive. The evidence discloses that Martha J. Tatum, mother of the jointowners, resided in a house on this forty acres of land for more than fifty years, and she was residing there on the date of the assessment of 1922 and until her death.

It is insisted by appellants that all proceedings in the cause subsequent to the appeal to this court on October 27, 1943, were void and of no effect and the court had no jurisdiction to proceed until the cause was heard and determined by this court.

The 120 acres of land described in the original bill was sold by the register for $1600 on November 15, 1943. In the last paragraph of the decree of October 19, 1943, from which the appeal was taken, the register of the court was directed to hold a reference in these words, 'That after such sale, the Register * * * immediately hold a reference to ascertain what would be a reasonable fee to be allowed complainant's solicitor for his services rendered in this cause, which findings on such reference, together with her report of sale, shall be made to this Court, and such report is ordered to lie over for the term of five days, in which time exceptions or objections may be filed thereto, and after the expiration of said five days, the Register is ordered and directed to return her said report to this Court for further orders.'

The register thereafter held a reference to ascertain what would be a reasonable fee to be allowed complainant's solicitor for his services rendered in this cause. This reference and report is set out in the record. The appellants are not shown to have been represented by an attorney and no notice shown to have been given any of the appellants, 'and no one attended the reference representing the appellants.' The witnesses each testified that a fee of $300 would be a fair and reasonable compensation for the attorney for the complainants in this cause. The register so reported this to the court and thereafter and on November 23, 1943, the court rendered a decree confirming the sale and ordering a conveyance of the property, and ordering the register to disburse the funds as set forth in the decree pursuant to such evidence and finding. The appellants on December 24, 1943, appealed from this decree and insist that, 'Even though the court had jurisdiction to proceed after the appeal from the decree of October 19th, 1943, the court was in error in the decree of October 19th, 1943, in directing the register to immediately hold a reference to ascertain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Nashville Bridge Co. v. Honeycutt
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1945
  • Gaines v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1945
  • Ex parte Dekle, 6 Div. 190
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 5 Agosto 1965
    ...bond. See Secs. 793, 794, 795, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940.'--Cartee v. Hubbard, 275 Ala. 356, 155 So.2d 309. See also Seamon v. Tatum, 246 Ala. 310, 20 So.2d 596, where it is 'The appeal perfected on October 27, 1943, from the decree of October 19, 1943, did not have the effect of removi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT