TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McMillan v. McMillan

McMILLAN Et Al. v. McMILLAN Et Al.

McMillan v. McMillan, 80 So. 404 (Ala. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1918
Docket
No. 1 Div. 47.
Judges
Somerville, Anderson, Gardner, Thomas
Citations
80 So. 404202 Ala. 3221918 Ala. LEXIS 407
Disposition
Reversed and rendered.
Headnotes
Partition c&wkey;63(l) — Burden of Proof. In action for partition of land among tenants in common, where defendants, claiming exclusive title, are in possession of land, the burden is upon complainants to show common title.
Summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; Ben D. Turner, Judge. Suit by Liston McMillan and others against John McMillan and wife and others. From decree rendered, respondents appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Somerville

SOMERVILLE, J.

The bill is filed for a sale of land for division among tenants in common.

Complainants, and some of the respondents, claim as heirs of their grandmother, Mahala McMillan, who, they allege was the owner of the land at her death. The adversary respondents are also heirs of Mahala McMillan, but they claim under an exclusive title deraigned from Aberdeen McMillan, 'Sr., who was the husband of Mahala.

The decisive question of fact in the case is simply whether the original owner, one McKenzie, sold and conveyed the land to Mahala, the wife, or to Aberdeen, the husband.

The evidence shows that the adversary respondents, John McMillan and his wife, Martha, have been in the exclusive possession of the land since 1903, and the burden is upon complainants to show a common title by showing that Mahala McMillan was the owner in her lifetime.

We have examined the evidence with great care. Much of it was illegal and inadmissible, and was duly objected to. So far as the direct testimony is concerned, it is about evenly balanced as to weight and credibility. The circumstances, however, including the *323 conduct of the parties, and their relations to the land since the death of Aberdeen and Mahala McMillan, Incline us strongly to the conclusion that the land belonged to Aberdeen and not to Mahala. Taking the evidence as a whole, it falls very far short of meeting the burden of proof that rests upon complainants, and we are constrained to hold that the trial judge erred in granting relief.

Let the decree be reversed, and one be here rendered, denying the relief prayed for and dismissing the bill of complaint.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11962: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Johnson144 So. 2d 12 (Ala. 1962)
  2. Hockstein v. Hamilton139 So. 288 (Ala. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Johnson144 So. 2d 12 (Ala. 1962)
  2. Hockstein v. Hamilton139 So. 288 (Ala. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list