Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Miss. 667

Cox v. Kyle

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1898

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1898-03-15

FROM the chancery court of Tunica county. HoN. A. H. LoNGINO, Chancellor. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. 1. Notwithstanding the denials of defendant’s answer that a sale was necessary, the court proceeded to decree a sale of the lands, upon some testimony that does not appear in the record.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2012

11 state decisions

301898190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Terral, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The decree of the, chancery court in this case approves the application of the whole purchase money to the complainants, two of the co-tenants, on the ground recited in the decree, that the other co-tenants were indebted to complainants, and yet there is no allegation in the bill nor any evidence in the record, of any such indebtedness. This appears to us to be error. .

¶3Another error is in decreeing a sale of the common property upon the pleadings and proofs in the case. The bill alleges that the tract of land cannot be divided in kind without impairing its value, and that it would be for the best interest of all the parties for the same to be sold for a division of the proceeds thereof. The answer of Lewis Cox avers that the land is susceptible of a division in kind, and that it would best serve the interests of all parties for it to be divided in kind, and there is no proof in the record on .the subject.

¶4The common law gave to joint owners of land a right to have a partition in kind, and the right of selling the land and of dividing the proceeds given by the statute, is an innovation upon *670the common law, and as it takes away from the owner the right to keep his freehold in kind, it must be strictly pursued, and it must appear from the record that an equal division cannot be made, or that'a sale of the land will better promote the interest of all parties than a partition in kind. Tindall v. Tindall, 3 So. Rep., 581; Roberts v. Coleman, 37 W. Va., 157; Zirkle v. McCue, 26 Gratt., 532; Freem. on Co-tenancy, sec. 537.

¶5The want of any proof of the necessity or of the propriety of the sale is apparent upon the face of the record. The recital in the. decree of the taking of oral proof does not cure the defect. Such oral proof is admissible in matters of this kind only when nqtice is filed or the written agreement of the parties is made therefor under § 1764, Ann. Code 1892.

¶6The decrees of the chancery court for the sale of the land for division, and of the confirmation of said sale, are

¶7Reversed, and the ease is remanded for a rehearing.

/75/miss/667 · .json · Public domain