Trice v. Miller

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Trice v. Miller

229 S.W.2d 233, 217 Ark. 229, 1950 Ark. LEXIS 398

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 1, 1950

Docket4-9187

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.W.2d 233 (Trice v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trice v. Miller, 229 S.W.2d 233, 217 Ark. 229, 1950 Ark. LEXIS 398 (Ark. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Leelar, J.

Mrs. Charley Miller died childless, without a will, owning 50 acres of land which had been devised to her by her father’s will. She left surviving her a husband, appellee Charley Miller, and blood relatives among whom are the appellants here. Charley Miller is in possession of the 50 acres. Appellants brought suit for a partition of the land. At the trial the Chancellor held that Charley Miller ‘ ‘ is vested with a right of possession of the entire tract for his natural life by virtue of his homestead interest.” Appellants contend this was error.

The land in question, having come to Mrs. Miller by devise from her father, was ancestral estate. Oliver v. Vance, 34 Ark. 564; Hofstatter v. Bona, 205 Ark. 729, 170 S. W. 2d 1016. The relevant law as to a husband’s interest in his wife’s ancestral lands appears in Ark. Stats., § 61-228: “Upon-the death of a married woman, her husband shall be entitled to the following portion of her estate, undisposed of by her will: . . . where she leaves no descendants, as to the lands in which her estate is ancestral the husband shall be entitled to one-third of her real property for life. . . .” Our law gives the husband no additional right of homestead in his wife’s lands. See Ark. Const., Art. IX, §§ 6, 10; Ark. Stats., § 62-601, et seq. His right in her ancestral lands is a one-third interest for his life.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Leelar, J.

Mrs. Charley Miller died childless, without a will, owning 50 acres of land which had been devised to her by her father’s will. She left surviving her a husband, appellee Charley Miller, and blood relatives among whom are the appellants here. Charley Miller is in possession of the 50 acres. Appellants brought suit for a partition of the land. At the trial the Chancellor held that Charley Miller ‘ ‘ is vested with a right of possession of the entire tract for his natural life by virtue of his homestead interest.” Appellants contend this was error.

The land in question, having come to Mrs. Miller by devise from her father, was ancestral estate. Oliver v. Vance, 34 Ark. 564; Hofstatter v. Bona, 205 Ark. 729, 170 S. W. 2d 1016. The relevant law as to a husband’s interest in his wife’s ancestral lands appears in Ark. Stats., § 61-228: “Upon-the death of a married woman, her husband shall be entitled to the following portion of her estate, undisposed of by her will: . . . where she leaves no descendants, as to the lands in which her estate is ancestral the husband shall be entitled to one-third of her real property for life. . . .” Our law gives the husband no additional right of homestead in his wife’s lands. See Ark. Const., Art. IX, §§ 6, 10; Ark. Stats., § 62-601, et seq. His right in her ancestral lands is a one-third interest for his life.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.2d 233, 217 Ark. 229, 1950 Ark. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trice-v-miller-ark-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack