Thompson v. Miller
| Decision Date | 03 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 41 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 502,85 So. 689 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. MILLER |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920
Appeal from Probate Court, Etowah County; L.L. Herzberg, Judge.
Petition of Millie Miller to set aside certain property to her as exempt, as the widow of James Miller, with contest by John Henry Thompson, a nephew and heir of the deceased. From a decree granting the prayer of the petition, contestant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Motley & Motley, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Goodhue & Brindley, of Gadsden, for appellee.
Appellee as the widow of one James Miller, deceased, there being no children, filed a petition in the probate court under the provisions of section 2097 of the Code of 1896 and section 4224 of the Code of 1907; these two sections being identical.
The proof was without dispute that petitioner's husband died in June, 1899, residing at the time of his death upon the farm described in the petition, the lot in Gadsden not being in any manner connected therewith, and that this petition to set aside this property as exempt under the foregoing statute was filed more than 20 years from the date of the death of the husband, and that several years prior to the filing of the petition the petitioner had sold the land constituting the homestead, which deed appears in evidence.
The majority of the court, consisting of ANDERSON, C.J McCLELLAN, SAYRE, THOMAS, and BROWN, JJ., are of the opinion and so hold, that the widow is without interest in the land and therefore is not in position to institute such proceedings. The majority do not consider that the case of Tartt v. Negus, 127 Ala. 301, 28 So. 713, relied upon by counsel for appellee, at all militates against this conclusion. Upon this question Justices SOMERVILLE and GARDNER do not agree.
The proof also discloses that the lot in Gadsden was not connected with the homestead in any manner, and there is nothing in the foregoing statute or any of the decisions of this court construing the same (Headen v. Headen, 171 Ala. 521, 54 So. 646; Jones v. Stokes, 179 Ala. 579, 60 So. 280; Fuller v. Am. Supply Co., 185 Ala. 512, 64 So. 549), which would authorize such a proceeding as to said lot as here attempted. The court therefore holds that the exceptions to the report of the commissioners were well taken and should have been sustained and the petition dismissed.
The decree will therefore be reversed, and one here rendered dismissing the petition.
Reversed and rendered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craig v. Root
...of time on account of any applicable principle.' Appellants in support of their contention rely on the following cases: Thompson v. Miller, 204 Ala. 502, 85 So. 689; Buchannon v. Buchannon, supra; and Bishop et al. Johnson, 242 Ala. 551, 7 So.2d 281. We have given careful consideration not ......
-
Leddon v. Strickland
... ... have the same set aside as exempt to her. Strickland v ... Hinson, 213 Ala. 401, 104 So. 766; Thompson v ... Miller, 204 Ala. 502, 85 So. 689. After this decision ... complainants filed the original bill with its exhibits ... thereto and as a part ... ...
-
Chambers v. Chambers
... ... and did not exceed in value and amount the exemptions allowed ... in favor of the widow. Miller v. Thompson, 209 Ala ... 469, 96 So. 481; Singo v. McGhee, 160 Ala. 245, 49 ... So. 290; Cogburn v. Callier, 213 Ala. 46, 104 So ... ...
-
Lester v. Stroud
... ... exceed in area and value the exemptions allowed by law, we ... need not here inquire. Headen v. Headen, 171 Ala ... 521, 54 So. 646; Thompson v. Miller, 204 Ala. 502, ... 85 So. 689 ... No ... right of possession of lands, other than the homestead of the ... decedent, passes ... ...