Potts v. Gray
Potts v. Gray
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Sect. 2577 of the Code of 1880 was improperly applied in this case, because the proceeding, which terminated in a partition of the lands was begun, not by the appellee, but by another, and her “ cross-petition,” as it was called by her solicitor, was not necessary to the procurement of the decree made. If her petition for the appointment of commissioners to make partition had not been added to her answer, the de-cre'e finally made would have been the same. Under the Code of 1871, sect. 1810, and the amendatory act on page 119 of Acts of 1875, it was lawful for Hudson, as executor, to proceed for a sale of the land for a division of the proceeds, and it would have been proper for the court, on the answer of the appellee, and without a cross-petition, to have ordered partition without a sale, although Hudson’s petition sought to have a sale. Sect. 2577 of the Code of 1880 applies in favor of a complainant, who initiates the proceeding for partition. It is intended to confer power on the court to make the common property bear the cost of partition, made for the good of all, by allowing a solicitor’s fee for instituting and conducting the proceedings, without which partition or sale would not have been made; and it is not applicable where partition or sale results as an incident of a suit begun by another than him who claims allowance for a solicitor’s fee.
Decree reversed, and corrected as to the allowance of solicitor’s fee, and affirmed as to all else.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- N. E. Potts v. Ella Gray
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Partition. Solicitor’s fee. Section 2577, Code 1880, applied. Sect. 2577 of the Code of 1880 provides that, “ la all eases of the partition or sale of property for division of proceeds, the courts may allow a reasonable solicitor’s fee to the solicitor of the camplainant to be taxed asa common charge on all the interests, and to be paid out of the proceeds, in case of sale, and to be a lien on the several parts, in case of partition.” This section does not authorize the allowance of a fee to the solicitor of a defendant and cross-complainant, notwithstanding the original bill seeks a sale for division, instead of a partition, of the property, and ,the answer and cross-bill opposes the sale and asks for partition, which is granted; for, under the statutes upon this subject, partition might be ordered in such case without the answer being made a cross-bill. 2. Same. Solicitor’s fee, when allowed. Statute construed. The section above quoted was intended to apply in favor of a complainant who initiates a proceeding for partition or sale of property for division, by allowing a solicitor’s fee for instituting and .conducting a proceeding, without which partition or sale would not be made; and it is not applicable where the partition or sale results as an incident of a suit begun by another than him who claims allowance for a solicitor’s fee.