Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 Ala. 245

Singo v. McGhee

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 6, 1909

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1909-02-06

Heard before Hon. J. B. Gaston. Petition by Dorcas Singo against Judy McGehee to have certain real estate set apart as exempt. From decree setting aside a former decree for petitioner, she appeals. On the 2d day of January, 1906, Dorcas Singo filed in the office of the judge of probate of Montgomery county a petition asking that a homestead be set aside to her out of certain property owned by her alleged husband, George Singo.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed on rehearing · Decided 1909-02-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 1977 · most notably Griffin v. Proctor (1943), Keenum v. Dodson (1924)

55 state decisions

13019091910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

¶2A majority of the court are of the opinion that the petition negatives the ownership of any other property by the decedent at the time of his death, and that the fact that he was a citizen of Montgomery county, Ala., at the time of his death, was not a jurisdictional fact to be averred in the petition, and it was sufficient if said fact was ascertained and set out- in the decree.

¶3As the first decree was not void, the second one vacating the same was void, and cannot support the appeal, which is dismissed.

*253Dowdell, O. J., and Simpson, McClellan, and Sayre, JJ., concur. Anderson, Denson, and Mayfield, JJ., adhere to the former opinion, and dissent from the holding of the majority.

¶4Note. — Justice Sayre, having presided on another case involving the validity of the decree in question (McGehee v. Parker, 49 South.____), desired to be excused from participating in this case, and was excused by the other members of the court. Upon consideration, however, by the other members, there was equal division, and, as Justice Sayre did not try the case in question, he was not disqualified under the statute, and was compelled to participate, after being informed by the other Justices that he was not disqualified, and that they could not certify his disqualification to the Governor.

/160/ala/245 · .json · Public domain