Thompson v. Heiter, 1 Div. 994.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 994. |
| Citation | 238 Ala. 549,192 So. 282 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. HEITER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.
Suit in equity by Kate Heiter against Margaret Thompson and others to sell lands for division among tenants in common, wherein Mike P. McDonald filed answer claiming the interest of respondent Thompson in certain of the property. From a decree directing a sale of the property, fixing the proportionate interest of the parties, and adjudging the claim of McDonald, the respondent Thompson alone appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wm. M Bekurs, of Mobile, for appellant.
Wm. H Cowan and J. Gordon Bennett, both of Mobile, for appellees.
A bill in equity was filed in this case for the sale of six parcels of property in Mobile for division among the tenants in common. It alleges, as amended, that complainant and respondents Edward Moneagle, Daniel P. Moneagle and James Moneagle each own an one-sixth interest in all said property: that Annie Erichsen died leaving respondents Julius Erichsen, Helen Erichsen and Willie Mae Weir as her sole heirs at law, and each own an one-eighteenth interest; that respondent Margaret Thompson claims an one-sixth interest in it all, and that she is a tenant in common with the others in it,--all except that parcel described as being on Broad Street; that respondent Mike P. McDonald claims her interest in that parcel under a sheriff's deed, which is specifically described; that Mike P. McDonald also holds four judgments against Margaret Thompson unsatisfied on the record, and appear to be a lien on her property: that respondent Pate has two judgments against her which are not satisfied on the record, and appear to be a lien on her property. The further allegations of the bill do not need recital for present purposes.
Margaret Thompson demurred to the bill for want of equity and for multifariousness. The demurrer was overruled. She assigns that decree as error. She then filed an answer which merely in general terms denied all the allegations of the bill. She alone appeals, so that it is not necessary to recite the status of the pleading as to other respondents, except to say that Mike P. McDonald filed answer claiming the lien of his judgments and the interest of Margaret Thompson to the Broad Street property under his execution sale.
Under evidence taken the court granted relief and decreed that the parties owned the property as tenants in common; that complainant and Edward Moneagle, Daniel Moneagle, each own an one-fifth interest in all the property; that Julius Erichsen, Helen Erichsen, Willie Mae Weir, each own an one-fifteenth interest; that Margaret Thompson owns an one-fifth interest in it all, except the Broad Street parcel, which interest of hers has been acquired by Mike P. McDonald under the sheriff's deed heretofore mentioned. No provision was made as to the alleged judgments in his favor remaining unsatisfied, nor of the judgments of respondent Pate.
Margaret Thompson also assigns as error the final decree of the court. No other parties have assigned errors.
There is of course equity in a bill which seeks a sale of the land of tenants in common for division under section 9331, Code. If there is any defect in pleading, the demurrer must be directed specially to it.
The bill is not multifarious because it shows that McDonald claims the share of one of the original tenants in common under a sheriff's sale. In such a suit, the statute, section 9334, Code, provides for the trial of all adverse claims of title either between the original tenants in common or others claiming the interest of one of the cotenants in the land or in a part of it. Thomas v. Skeggs, 218 Ala. 562, 119 So. 610; Leddon v. Strickland, 218 Ala. 436, 118 So. 651. See Gore v. Dickinson, 98 Ala. 363, 11 So. 743, 39 Am.St.Rep. 67.
The contention is also made by appellant that though the allegations of the bill are denied, there is no proof of the interest of the several parties in the property. But the cross-examination of J. G. Bennett shows that the bill does correctly state the interest of each except as respects the rights of McDonald as an execution purchaser.
There is an apparent inconsistency in the decree in failing to show that James Moneagle has an one-sixth interest. The fore part of the decree lists him as a cotenant, but in setting out the interest of each he is not named. That omission caused an error in fixing the proportionate interest of the others. So that according to the evidence complainant and Edward Moneagle, Daniel P. Moneagle and James Moneagle own an one-sixth interest instead of an one-fifth, and Julius Erichsen, Helen Erichsen and Willie Mae Weir own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Stickney
...883; Betts et al. v. Betts, 250 Ala. 479, 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. This suit involves a 360-acre tract of land in Hale County acquired in 1871 by Taul Hobso......
-
Sisson v. Swift
...thereon, levy and sale, all evidenced prima facie by recitals in the deed, suffice to protect the purchaser." In Thompson v. Heiter, 238 Ala. 549, 192 So. 282, was held that where a judgment, execution, levy and sale are recited in the sheriff's deed, no irregularity in the conduct of the s......
-
Shaddix v. Wilson
...a matter of equitable cognizance. Sellers v. Valenzuela, 249 Ala. 627, 32 So.2d 517; Percoff v. Solomon, supra. In Thompson v. Heiter, 238 Ala. 549, 192 So. 282, 284, we said: 'There is of course equity in a bill which seeks a sale of the land of tenants in common for division under section......
-
Box v. Box
...10 So.2d 478 243 Ala. 437 BOX v. BOX. 7 Div. 670.Supreme Court of AlabamaNovember 19, 1942 [10 So.2d ... Co. v ... Phillips, 223 Ala. 5, 135 So. 841; Thompson v ... Heiter, 238 Ala. 549, 192 So. 282 ... ...