Williams v. Anthony
| Decision Date | 21 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 864. |
| Citation | 219 Ala. 98,121 So. 89 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS ET AL. v. ANTHONY ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Bill in equity by Anna C. Anthony and others against Joe H. Williams and others, to sell lands for division, determine the interest of the parties therein, and assign homestead to the widow. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill respondents appeal. Affirmed.
F. M Savage, of Center, and E. O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellants.
Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellees.
The equity of the bill may be sustained on two distinct equitable remedies: (1) Sale of land for division; and (2) a distribution of a decedent's estate. The estate consists of 265 acres of land.
A bill for the sale of land for division is sufficient to confer jurisdiction if it makes all the tenants parties, "shows in a way the interest of each, and which of them are infants and states that 'the property cannot be equitably divided among the several joint owners of the same."' Edwards v. Edwards, 142 Ala. 267, 278, 39 So. 82, 86; Foley v. Brock, 173 Ala. 336, 56 So. 207; Chandler v. Home Loan Co., 211 Ala. 80, 99 So. 723. There is no demurrer to the bill for the failure to state clearly and fully the interest of each of the parties. It should make a positive statement not a probable one in this respect, but a failure at this point is not jurisdictional. It may then, in the alternative, and if mistaken as to the interest so stated, allege some other, and different, distinct interest. But the bill is not subject to demurrer for want of equity on account of insufficient averment in this respect.
In Teal v. Chancellor, 117 Ala. 612, 23 So. 651, this court held that, when a decedent is alleged to owe no debts, and no administrator has been appointed, there being no necessity for one, the chancery court will take jurisdiction to settle and distribute the estate among those entitled to receive the same, and settle and adjust all controversies between the heirs and distributees, equalizing the share of each to the others. The bill in the instant case alleges facts coming under the purview of this principle. In such a bill it is not necessary to allege distinctly, as in a partition suit strictly under the statute, the exact interest of each heir. It is not a statutory proceeding, and the court should determine the interest of each; it being necessary to allege the names, ages, and status of the heirs and the relation of each to decedent.
In a bill filed for partition under the statute the court may ascertain and decree the homestead and dower rights of the widow. Leddon v. Strickland (Ala. Sup.) 118 So. 651; Whitehead v. Boutwell (Ala. Sup.) 117 So. 623; Sandlin v. Anders, 210 Ala. 396, 98 So. 299. In a bill filed to invoke equity jurisdiction to settle and distribute the estate of a decedent certainly it could decree homestead and dower as an incident. This court, in the case of Bank of Hartselle v. Brindley, 213 Ala. 405, 104 So. 803, in effect overruled the case of Dudley v. Rye, 209 Ala. 164, 95 So. 810, in this respect.
The statement is made in the bill that the right to dower is barred by limitations. We observe here that the limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Ward
... ... WARD et al. 4 Div. 801 Supreme Court of Alabama May 9, 1935 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge ... Bill in ... equity by Maud Howell, individually and as executrix of the ... will of G.M. Howell, deceased, against Alice ... Strickland et al., ... 218 Ala. 436, 118 So. 651; Whitehead et al. v ... Boutwell, 218 Ala. 109, 117 So. 623; Williams et al ... v. Anthony et al., 219 Ala. 98, 121 So. 89 ... It is ... necessary that we be acquainted with the character and legal ... effect of the exhibits ... ...
-
Tate v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Oxford
...disputed property "via her conveyance" to the Board and the Board's possession thereof until her death in 2012. In Williams v. Anthony, 219 Ala. 98, 99, 121 So. 89, 90 (1929), our supreme court observed that the statute of limitations expressed in § 63 "do[es] not apply to prevent a widow f......
-
Craig v. Root
...of laches or limitations has application to one in the full and sole possession of the rights sought to be barred. See, Williams v. Anthony, 219 Ala. 98, 121 So. 89. is true that the heirs could also in that time have begun proceedings to that end, and perhaps should have done so, had the l......
-
Shaddix v. Wilson
...averment of the respective interests of the several complainants in the suit property. The rule is stated in Williams v. Anthony, 219 Ala. 98, 121 So. 89, 90, in the following 'A bill for the sale of land for division is sufficient to confer jurisdiction if it makes all the tenants parties,......