Wiggins v. Mertins

Decision Date28 May 1896
Citation20 So. 356,111 Ala. 164
PartiesWIGGINS v. MERTINS.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from probate court, Montgomery county; J. B. Gaston, Judge.

Exceptions by Sylvia Wiggins to the report of commissioners appointed on petition of G. F. Mertins, guardian, to set apart exempt personal property to the minor children of J. F. Roper deceased. The exceptions were overruled, the report confirmed, and claimant appeals. Affirmed.

On February 14, 1894, J. F. Roper, who was then a bona fide resident of Montgomery county, Ala., died, leaving, at the time of his death, certain minor children, to wit, Effie Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper. On March 15, 1894, S. S Boothe was appointed administrator of the estate of J. F Roper,deceased, and took possession of the property belonging to said estate, which consisted of money and choses in action. On November 25, 1895, the appellee, G. F. Mertins was appointed guardian of Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper; the said Effie having attained her majority in the meantime. No property or portion of said estate having been set aside as exempt to said minors, as required by law, G. F. Mertins, as guardian, on November 25, 1895, filed his petition in the probate court of Montgomery county, praying for an order of said court to have set aside as exempt, and for the benefit of said minors, such portion of the estate as they were entitled to. Upon the filing of this petition, the probate court made an order appointing three commissioners, directing them to set aside said exemption as provided by law. This commission was executed, and the commissioners made their report on December 13, 1895, in which they set apart the sum of $1,000, belonging to the estate of J. F. Roper, deceased, and in the hands of his administrator, as exempt to the minors, Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper. On January 11, 1896, Sylvia Wiggins, the appellant, claiming to be a simple contract creditor of the estate of J. F. Roper, deceased, filed several exceptions to the report of the commissioners, and asked that the report of the commissioners be set aside and not allowed, or otherwise modified, so as to allow the said three minors only such sum as they may be entitled to have set apart to them as exempt after this claimant's debt has been paid.

There were several grounds of exceptions to the report of the commissioners, which may be summarized as follows: (1) The administrator of said estate had been appointed and qualified long prior to the filing of the petition to have the alleged exemptions set apart, and no inventory has ever been made or filed of the assets belonging to said estate, as required by law. (2) Said minors, Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper, are not entitled to have $1,000 set apart as exempt to them. (3) At the time of the death of the decedent, J. F. Roper, he left four children, to wit, Effie, Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper. Prior to the filing of the petition to have the alleged exemptions set apart to the said Maggie, Nellie, and Robbie Roper, said Effie Roper had become of legal age without in any manner claiming said exemptions of personal property, or any portion thereof, and has not yet made such claim, whereby the said Effie Roper lost and waived any right which she might have had during her minority to claim the same, or her portion thereof, to wit, one-fourth of whatever might be exempt to all of said minors, to wit, $250, and said sum or portion of said personal property fell back into the assets of the said estate, and became liable and subject to the debts thereof, and did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Williams v. Overcast
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1934
    ...and minors' homestead exemptions are governed by the law in force at the time of the husband's and father's death ( Wiggins v. Mertins, 111 Ala. 164, 169, 20 So. 356; Waters v. Gadsden-Ala. C. L. Co., 182 Ala. 284, So. 75; Long v. Brown, 206 Ala. 154, 89 So. 614); that by the Code of 1907 t......
  • Bishop v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1942
    ... ... aside. Code 1923, § 7920." This authority is rested on ... Buchannon v. Buchannon, 220 Ala. 72, 124 So. 113, ... supra; Wiggins v. Mertins, 111 Ala. 164, 169, 20 So ... 356. It was observed in the Haynes case, 236 Ala. 331, 181 ... So. 758, that the "survivor may have ... ...
  • Wright v. Fannin
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1934
    ... ... husband's death, as affecting the nature and extent and ... value of the lands as a homestead. Wiggins v. Mertins, ... Guardian, 111 Ala. 164, 20 So. 356; Waters et al. v ... Gadsden-Ala. C. L. Co. et al., 182 Ala. 284, 62 So. 75; ... Long et al ... ...
  • T.S. Faulk & Co. v. Boutwell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1942
    ...in whose favor the exemption may operate." No such question as was determined in the Buchannon case was presented or considered in Wiggins v. Mertins, supra. Haynes v. Haynes, supra, there was occasion to consider and give effect to Section 7956, Code 1923, Title 7, § 702, Code 1940, which ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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