Court Opinion

ID: 7994070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:34:44.342853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:28.800151
License: Public Domain

vOoi>Ky J*,
(Miwmbtlie ppiniQu^of tine court,*-».- yr \..i'
'ft" 'P'cps^rt-uH.a: ftB £_n4'2rP' §¿^.;ÍS-L^Í5f ®, ft a£‘ hP- JS of ají- ft" to ®* atonC ®~ pj ft cK B'' P; - .. r P- O' H or* h- ft 'ft g & Mfe^§:Srgs#g=&ji£ <£&*&&*5?£ CD;; t=& O- P~ p- Sr-O-^ ©~® . J¿r^tí¿2*‘tí¿ ^ - tí-"*©5-' Pa tí^ rf o"^ 't — i CD ,_,-- p 0- coj*. j-b. p7 o^ pa: 3-. tí~ ET oax £*: $$ ■>0'-CKS -CD^pr Hs’-P^ Vffi^ ^ H=' .ft CD- CD O*"** -2~»> P-'”* p rhH~* R1® ? e±T S- ^ - Q>'r wí’ctsp p sH'^cr; c+ or tF £?■' 3-* P;; Sr. EiSt*• oy to* s^oa.s-* 5; °~ ©'í^ .p-S'P- ©¿fiteS? Sóp-Vh-P-, p.»p‘‘ftftrHf ®~,_r JEr-^'-SL* ft -ft— it s-m ^,. sr r ?? o to p~ tf ^ a «=*■w r-*- g: r ®■• s- r s-®. ftr ftft-, ©-ft- b-'á' to & m~ ft tftw • • - Sth»- ft- ■ o ' mr. ‡ £ §©& %i^|: <*g» t^-p3g ft ■ SsgSF gr M’ r * » p * M; '« ¡=f gBj: P Hi.®" P.. oP- (D'.'O ■ iij m p^,&wkey; P* á he- d?h--g- h-_a p''§fr- .„ ^-g h. ®]e;-b-:s-o*se&•»,;g Ke*C ^ i-fK S S pa« S1 p’-'* 3, pí-fií* ^ 2" í?- 2- m1' á rH^rir. *rii c+^S. p:’ •“ “ ^, >. t* a;- ®; 4. p. CP »- tr. 5-- ly- 0-_ o. w* <J - K;.-si- pv o- !» o Si ^ p K" ‘ ¡ — 1 0.-Í* P • g- ca* ^■2 *.o- ,;- Hi ÍBi 4" £: IT: &: O ®, ~ di ®- ... 2',+C) p* g; S3--®" ^ tp; p1 >-¡„-q; K_..ra. o- 1 r jt . _<-- w*s O- ,c p, ^ rH^- • • erh pxjH- Ctr '-ST,Kr-i3- §; - b- O' §' 2. h»: ÍTÍ ,‘® 2 Hi-R; B-'O ^ ■ ®: <£- ®r iP^K'- h , d oríí*w- ®;‘h .® W' P p «¿a tP ^ S W ®ip T. S' ^ 2-to' B“ efe H»; 8K. --• 2~-h-“- sS-,. P» » &\ o- v? gc §:.'• -• aJv ^ -Ni Hi ft'-®. Si <T»’’ O - QB" Tf) 2v P""* - Mt.^d -«.. j/2- H . O: , . rt ££u TH’-O ,. Pi VH B *d'. SSCOÍ.• to». C£.,gj; p;-¿_-g- gr^- §^®-2-'§ b' .'• hH*- t?£ r/>« 52; • • ■'-d'-’P ■O .':h CD S ’* c+* :P ^P: P* P- P — O*- ^ ^ 1 "‘p- iT-. c» H erf- O'CD“ "• *r“" pr . - CD _.i — 4 S* - £ 3- cf S'- "2.: H,: .to- ^ g fti;| ftpT-3 .-'3 ®5 .03 ---2 AS ' o -r ,s ■ r -th ® -.ift s •ni *-4-3 . rri '*f_t 2 C*H ftJto£ ,,® ' ' $D” .'- hj*‘ ¿f- ® Hi- M <, . -SÍÍJ^Í’É'ÍIS** 02 * t=r “ CD * P --tí' t#*; li fe ^ |.S IS 1 g |J f ^ % ? p' * ^ — " -w • Pi'cvn'r tí g“j pj . <5- t*?l * >to; , B. . ^ — .. _ ^_l-i CT 02 . - XJí tí- Or Pi S-- w'i ■ «•^i:£^Bi to.s: O O 50 B M p Q Pi ft 2 - > CH K H— H". Hrt HT H». ffi- Oi m ggLP r V — »“> - ^1-H. W— ... BJ P5> R, R1 cd* $o-, an.Et- r^' 1 w. ty" if- ft-& Sr-SirH-^Si 6' ft 03 ft : CD „P - 20 rr «h cr rp -o -p 's_j - - tSN-QJ .._, ^ •*- ro -*p| -O R -pj--P -4j *«w ® ft: & &.tor f. gi ft; ®.; £ to gF‘ - ^ pir‘20-^R‘ O- tír qq’^ P** p;'*S~ ua. tí' fin® -
Pf so —H- pt wVpr Lv cto^ pr pj ”~e-to v — if.P - Oj. cor toh-ws. B.o-bstjT§i;«®;;®~ SP;®«p..s_|-a>--p -;PA.rti ftS rti B c+O M>rt H'jto/^c+O O. Pi O- --ft- B'- 6- vú S ft O... ■ 'oto ® -. ft~ to gr.oí ¿$ os rt; 2 h* to to'®" to'b ' R ES-’ B~ &wkey;-®~-cp-, gig: b*. ®..-.,®;.- cpto- ft to ® ^ g' g- ®; %i g - grg-g: g, W S' ©=.&*£ to Hr §• S'-'ft&wkey;. 3?.r Hi ft p-, H.. ft.totoi-^^lto to S* to to to ^ a- ofttoS-~ to K1 2* O' 2* í£:to- H- ®r ctofttol H»; Pl_ B“ OK to .‘toi. ft to to- <. M %.*£&o= S#tof ft C£:^g to- ft |' 2; gi to'-to tolto ft nr rt-; H-. *• Bt -2ft. - ft" Pl-oh-: to S-, ® P- r¡/, p' cd. cd,- rf~ ao¿ gr„p.: tí"- ^ wi g- a p*-to-ft.s' to to ■■ to H- BI: S' §; a Si r a-»: to to p*-al t-rto Er ® H b51'. 21'ft; ft S- ‘, ui' CT* ^ tí*“tí,. (T)>- itoi* w> rfcS: 2?tetoí |. $ K- rt. ®- ® . Pi tft (Sr. O' ft 4~-o !ft: p b5- to50: ®“.®; ft ft-ft' _'"ap®;. tí.' CD y^í ” ■ i -totow CD- tí/ CtW.O ^ riwj C® r c-}-_* aj ¡¿¿ H-c m- fa- ' rr-' ■•i®- ®;:.ffi-* to-®. ;• op;ft** “ pj’2r.o* * B- ^ Hi, 50- P.- a>~ H -r- Hi p.. g =3 §- Hi* S'-o; ft-ft-®; b & ? • ;ft. g- to; 4:‘®c ft-o- ft g¿ g* ®-_. -ft ®-p* £' to'ft ft ft ÍK ft.^i tft [S"CD rr CD-©,* r, tí-^ ■• "tí ÍIÍS S At Doy Cft; b¿.H Hji to'ft.^®--|f|zrj,ft^l f -S Sir? Q,;p£.|tSrft; A.-rtft --tír©*-~ r ©•* • ^ w ‘ D “ CD c-to © tís tí . © tíft .*tí_ y. *18was a fair price for tbe property, and with her attorneys and one W. A. Cuevas she entered in some negotiations to purchase the property at private sale. Upon legal advice the proposed private sale was abandoned, and thereupon a bill for a sale for partition was filed in the chancery court by Mrs. A. B. Hayden, one of the cotenants, in her own behalf, and as guardian of her two minor sisters, against the other co-tenants, and Mrs. J. M. Courtenay, as guardian of her four minor children. Thereafter under proper and regular proceedings a decree was entered, ordering the property sold for division of the proceeds, and appointing A. B. Hayden to sell the property at a price of not less than six thousand dollars. After due advertisement the property was offered for sale on the 2d day of August, 1920, and was sold to the highest bidder at and for the sum of seven thousand and fifty dollars. After this sale was made payment of rent and possession of the property was again demanded of Mrs. Courtenay, but she refused to vacate, and at the expiration of the second year period, that is September 1, 1920, legal proceedings were instituted in the justice court seeking to oust her. There was a judgment against hex*, from which she appealed to the circuit court, and there the appeal was dismissed, but it appears that the judgment was never enforced, and she still continues in possession of the premises.
On the 18th day of January, 1921, the special commissioner filed his report of sale, and set out therein in great detail his dealings with the property and his efforts to oust Mrs. Courtenay in order that possession might be delivered to the purchaser, and prayed that the court should inquire into, determine and adjust the equities between the co-tenants, and the claims of all persons interested or claiming any interest in the property. After the commissioner’s sale one W. A. Cuevas filed a petition in the nature of a petition of intervention, by which he propounded a claim of four hundred, twenty eight dollars and twenty-eight cents for repairs done on the property at the instance and request of the lessee, Mrs. Courtenay, but since this claim was allowed by the chancellor and no appeal has been *19prosecuted from the action of the chancellor in this regard, it is unnecessary to set tut the allegations of this petition or the proof offered in support thereof. At the February, 1921 term of the court Mrs. Courtenay filed objections to the confirmation of the report of sale, and set up a claim against the property for one hundred and sixty-five dollars expended by her for repairs thereon, and upon the final hearing a decree was entered, confirming the sale and directing the commissioner to execute a deed to the purchaser upon the payment of the balance of the purchase price. The decree further charged the estate with the amount expended by W. A. Cuevas for repairs thereon, allowed Mrs. J. M. Courtenay, as guardian of her minor children, a credit of one hundred and sixty-five dollars for repairs made by her, charged the interest of the minors with one-seventh of the amount paid out for taxes and insurance on the property, and also charged the interest of these minors with six-sevenths of the rental charge fixed for the use and occupation of the property by the said minors and their guardian up to the date of the decree, amounting to six hundred and eighty-five dollars from which decree Mrs. Courtenay, as guardian of the minors, prosecuted this appeal.
No exception is taken to the action of the court in allowing the charges for repairs, or in taxing the interest of the minors with their proportionate share of the taxes and insurance, paid on the property, but the assignment of error is based upon the action of the court in charging the interest of the minors with six-sevenths of the rental charge for the use and occupation of the premises.
We fully recognize the well-settled equitable principle that each co-tenant has a lien upon the interest of every other for the value of the use and occupation of the joint estate beyond such tenants’ individual interest therein, and no doubt the learned chancellor had this principle in mind when he charged the interest of these minors with the value of the use and occupation of the premises. We *20do^nottbipli, however, that the facts in eyidenep hepe, bring. th¡p(sp ■npiiprrfOrífinan^iWijtMn.tli^t.rule.. .,/
Mít will be. nq.fed that; .Mrs, J..¡51, Cp.nrtepay, pndiTidp^ily,, le^ed.^is,,property, and eptered.into pppspssipn tlierpf,;at¡ a, time, whep these .minors ltad,,pq.,interest..therein^,..and. th/n;eafteyrt}iese .¡qiiildren..occupied jthe,premises, pierely as.' initiates.of tlie «home.p,f( tbeir, mother pud, legal guardian,;, whf^e,daty¡it, ,to provide a homed pr ,thepi,, ,The ¡niojthejtf, leasedÁí^..property.and,bound herself in Ayritipg to,.pay,.,a;: rqptaldhepefor,, apd.jshe. cannot .escape. thisJiability,. ap,d t,fcips, fi?:,a.change ;np.qn,.the, estate qf her ptipor chiJ-,¡ dtpp,.byjrea^op..o^ the fact,that these minor, .children, after,-. wia)r4siiacq1niredsan.interest in the leased,premise^. ¡¡These. chiidr.ep;^,ere,pof in.possession,of this property .as.Cft-fePr ajit^,,oj.; by; .virtue of.¡their;own title, hat* merely as an,in;. cijíepit.ipdJiqir relationship £0 ¡the .lessee, and the.coptrapt. of thp. .lessee was. .not, abrogated, or her liability thereunder, cbapged.,l)y,:reason,of.,the,fac.t .that before";the .expiration, outlie,contract her.,children.acquired an interest ip the, property. ,¡' w.e think, appellees should pursue whatever,. r^rpedie.Sjtk^.niay.haye.agaipst the,ope who.is Jbpupd,by!; contract tpipay th,is< rept> and that tbe interest ofihesemi-nors should not be made to bear thp.ch.arge, ,for,.nse,.apd, occupation. .. , ,.t¡, ,,, ,, .._ ,
In support, pf.¡this, provision, ,of the, decree,,..appellees, rely upon the case of Walker v. Williams, 84 Miss. 392, 36 So. 450, but, under the facts in evidence here, we do not think that is authority in their favor. In the Walker Case the court said :
“The property was occupied, by appellant .as ¡tenant in, pOSspssiqp by¡yir£pe apd,strength q£ her, own, title,; pud the qpesti.on,of.legal,doppcile;do.es-not affect-the.rights of h.ei?; cqrtepapts.?.t !t i'.,, ■ .,
Jpdhe case nqyv,before,ps, as jye have,already pointed, opt, ¡flip-property,w;as,pot,qccppied, by appellants ¡“as,tep-.. aptiMp, .possession by virtue and strength of their owpdi-. tip"// ...,Y. V... .'Y. «-Y
*21We see no merit in the other assignment of error.'' The decree of the lower court, in so far as it charges thfe’interest of the minors withf the Valúe óf the iise ana ' 'chpátion bf- the: premises, is reteffeed/’&iid' a! déttéé"t?ill’'be uiitfered íiere'affirming "the ‘decree in all o’thfet '

Affirmed in part'and reversed'm'jpart.