Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 Ala. 57

91 So 886

Miles v. Miles

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 22, 1921

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1921-12-22

Greene, Judge. Bill by Tom Miles against Sallie Miles, to sell certain lots and a house for division. From a decree overruling demurrers to the .bill, respondents appeal. Held: and is still holding, complainant’s part of the said money as trust property for your complainant, said amount being $436.-96.

Relies on Smith v. Witcher · McEvoy v. Leonard · Donegan v. Donegan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-12-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1988

5 state decisions

301921193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

ANDERSON, C. J.

¶1 [1-3] It is well settled by the decisions of this court that one joint owner of land may file a bill in equity for a sale of same for division when the same cannot be faiidy partitioned in kind between the respective owners, hotwithstand-ing the owners may be husband and wife. Donegan v. Donegan, 103 Ala. 488, 15 South. 823, 49 Am. St. Rep. 53. Such a bill, however, cannot be maintained by the husband against the wife, over her objection, when the land sought to be sold constitutes the homestead. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 101 Ala. 183, 13 South. 147. The last part of paragraph 3 of the bill charges that the land in-question was not used as a homestead at the time of filing said bill, and this averment was neither eliminated nor contradicted by the amendment to said bill.

¶2 [4] Paragraph 4 of the bill, before and after amendment, charges that the said land' cannot be equitably divided, and, while the reasons given therefor do not go further, and show an inequality of value, or other physical facts than that one lot is improved and the others are not, it does not affirmatively show or aver that said land can be equitably divided, and is not subject to the respondent’s fourth and sixth grounds of demurrer. Smith v. Witcher, 180 Ala. 102, 60-South 391; McEvoy v. Leonard, 89 Ala. 455, 8 South. 40.

¶3 The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶4 Affirmed.

SAXRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.
/207/ala/57 · .json · Public domain