Tripp v. Tripp
Tripp v. Tripp
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court of Jefferson County wherein the Probate Court denied to Elouise Tripp, alleged widow of Amos N. Tripp, her claim for homestead and personal property exemptions allowed to the widow of the decedent under the law of this state.
The Court appointed commissioners to appraise the property of the decedent. After the report of the commissioners was filed heirs of the decedent filed objections to the report and an answer to the widow’s petition, the ground for such objections and answer being that the said Elouise was not the widow of the decedent and was never legally married to Amos Tripp, deceased.
Evidence was taken on the issues framed and the court rendered a decree denying to Elouise Tripp her claim for homestead and personal property exemptions. From this decree the appeal is taken.
Appellant assigns as error the court’s sustaining the objections filed to the report of the commissioners previously appointed by the court on the ground that such objections were not filed within thirty days as required by Tit. 7, § 676, Code of Alabama of 1940. While it is unquestioned that objections to the commissioners’ report as such must be filed within thirty days, the heirs of decedent in this case likewise filed an answer to the petition of the widow alleging that she was not in fact the widow of the decedent. The issue, which is one of fact, was raised by the answer to the petition of the alleged widow filed by the heirs of the decedent. .Certainly, if appellant was not the widow of decedent, she would be entitled to no exemptions.
The evidence discloses that decedent and Elouise Tripp went through a ceremonial marriage in 1931. However, there is undisputed evidence that at that time Rev. Amos Tripp, decedent, had a living wife from whom he was not divorced. Likewise, it is evident from the testimony of the witnesses that the appellant lived in Mobile and the decedent lived
In view of the presumption in favor of the findings of the Probate Judge on appeal where he has seen the witnesses and heard the testimony, we cannot say his findings were palpably wrong. Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, 240 Ala. 422, 199 So. 813; Ex parte Nunnally Co., 209 Ala. 82, 95 So. 343; Gray v. Weatherford, 227 Ala. 324, 149 So. 819.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Elouise TRIPP v. Sam TRIPP, as
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published