Hillens v. Brinsfield
Supreme Court of Alabama
Petition for Sale of Lands for Partition among Tenants in Common. Appeal from the Probate Court of Montgomery. The facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Petition for Sale of Lands for Partition among Tenants in Common. Appeal from the Probate Court of Montgomery. The facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Actual adverse possession, under claim of exclusive ownership, against petitioner, by defendant in the proceedings, which has not been tried at law, is a bar to proceedings — Gore v. Dickinson, 98 Ala. 363 ; Hillens ¶. Brinsfield, 108 Ala. 605. The doctrine asserted in the case of Ilillens v. Brinsfield, 108 Ala. 605, is applicable to and controls this case. The judgment nunc pro tunc was proper. — TF7¡,orhy v. M. & C. R.…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
A petition was filed in the probate court of Montgomery county by Emma Brinsfield alleging that she and Kate Monfee were tenants in common of certain lands, each owning a half interest, and containing all other allegations made necessary by statute in a proceeding to sell lands for partition. An appeal was taken by Kate Monfee and Charles Hillens (who was also made a defendant to the petition as claiming some interest in the lands) from final decree alleged to have been rendered in the proceeding, directing a sale of the lands. On that appeal, the decree was -affirmed. Hillens v. Brinsfield,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kimbrell v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Hillens v. BrinsfieldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Rudulph v. BrewerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chavers v. MayoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Webb v. FrenchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Bowling v. Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Lehman v. GunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Davis v. Vandiver & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.