Chapman v. York
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
This court has repeatedly held that a party who seeks a sale of land for partition must be entitled to possession or the immediate use of the proceeds, and that a reversioner cannot maintain a bill for partition against one holding an outstanding life estate in tire entire property and who is entitled to the present use and enjoyment of the land, since the right to partition land depends upon actual or constructive possession of the 'land and the immediate right to participate in the proceeds of a sale for such purpose. Shannon v. Ogletree, 202 Ala. 219, 80 South. 41; Fies v. Rosser, 162 Ala.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fitts v. CraddockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Fies v. RosserSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Letcher v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Jordan v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Welden v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Shrout v. SealeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1971
- Etheredge v. EtheredgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Aniton v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Chapman v. YorkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Henry v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.