Opinion

Forrester v. Forrester

  • 39 Ala. 320
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Jan 15, 1864
Status
Published
Author
Walker
On the bench
Walker
Cited by
14 cases
Authority
More cited than 97.6%

The opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

Eor more than a year after tbe certificate of tbe reversal of a former decree in tbis case was received by tbe probate judge, no step whatever was taken in tbe cause, but it appears to bave remained without notice or attention, either by the court or tbe parties. Under tbe later decisions of tbis court, it is well settled, tbat such facts do not constitute a discontinuance. No mere neglect of tbe Court to docket tbe cause and call it for trial, or mere omission of counsel to cause it to be docketed and called for trial, can, under our decisions, operate a discontinuance. But it would be otherwise, if tbe cause bad, by tbe active agency of tbe party or her counsel, been taken from tbe docket. —Ex parte Remson, 31 Ala. 270 ; Harrell v. State, 26 Ala. 52 ; Brown and Wife v. Clements, 24 Ala. 354 ; Drinkard v. State, 20 Ala. 9 ; Wiswall v. Glidden, 4 Ala. 357 .

[2.] Tbe decree shows tbat tbe land, in which dower was granted, is tbe land described in tbe petition; and tbe land is described in tbe petition as situate in Tuskaloosa county. Therefore, tbe objection tbat tbe land is not shown to be in Tuskaloosa county, is not well taken in point of fact.

[3.] It is necessary tbat tbe petition for dower should state who are tbe heirs, and designate those who are infants or femes covert. —Code, § 1361; Green v. Green, 7 Porter, 19 . But we da not think it is indispensable for it to appear from tbe decree tbat proof was made of tbe correctness of tbat statement. Tbe object of tbe statement of tbe names of tbe heirs is to bave tbe proper parties before tbe corut. Tbe fact tbat certain persons are heirs, does not constitute any element in tbe right of tbe dowress. It is sufficient if tbe decree recites tbe facts upon which tbe petitioner’s fight depends. Tbis is substantially done in tbis case.

*324 [4.] Tbe widow’s right of dower did not at all depend upon tbe fact, tbat her husband resided in this State, or in the county where the proceedings were had. We therefore cannot perceive that it was at all necessary that the decree should recite any thing upon the subject.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.