Thornton v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Probate Court of Russell. Tried before Hon. T. L. Appleby. The opinion states tbe material facts of the ease. We admit that under section 1788 of the Code of 1852, the widow would not be entitled under the statement of facts; for that section only exempts land as against the creditors of the estate, and the estate of the deceased must be insolvent in fact before said section operates.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Probate Court of Russell. Tried before Hon. T. L. Appleby. The opinion states tbe material facts of the ease. We admit that under section 1788 of the Code of 1852, the widow would not be entitled under the statement of facts; for that section only exempts land as against the creditors of the estate, and the estate of the deceased must be insolvent in fact before said section operates. But this section was amended and changed by an act of the legislature, approved 30th January, 1860. — See Acts 1859-60, p. 18. And by this act the same property is exempt from the claims of the…
1Opinion of the CourtB. F. Saffold, J.
The appellant applied to the probate court to set apart to her five hundred dollars worth of the lands belonging to the estate of her deceased husband, under the provisions of section 2061 of the Revised *275Code. She does not allege that the estate is insolvent, but claims the land exempt from the claims of heirs, distributees or legatees, as well as from the payment of debts. It was proven on the trial that the estate was not insolvent, and that a decree of the probate court had been made allotting dower to petitioner, but its execution had not been reported. The court dismissed the petition.
Und…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Knudsen v. HannbergUtah Supreme Court · 1892
- Hudson v. StewartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872