Case ID: tenn_22/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GR.een, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adair vs. Davis.
    1. The act of 1835, ch. 17, allows two days within which a parly dissatisfied with the judgment of a justice of the peace may appeal, and therefore a statement in a petition for a certiorari that the party was not able at the time of the rendition of the judgment to give security for the appeal, is not a sufficient reason for not having appealed. The petitioner should have stated that he could not give the security during the time allowed bylaw. See 2 Hum. 32.
    2. Where a party purchased and executed a note for the share of an heir of the real estate of a supposed intestate, and after the execution of the note, but before judgment thereupon, the maker of the note ascertained that the deceased had made a will devising the estate and defeating the title of the payee: Held, that knowing the existence of the will at the time of the rendition of the judgment, a statement in a petition for a certiorari that he did not know of the probate of the will at that time, is an insufficient reason for not having appealed.
    This is an appeal in error from the circuit court of Cocke county. All the material facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      
      Peclc, for the plaintiff in error.
    Hinds, for the defendant in error.
   GR.een, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the petitioner for a certiorari states that the petitioner had purchased of Davis one-fourth of the tract of land of which Davis’s father died seized, and gave his note for $30, taking Davis’s covenant to transfer said land to him. Before the said note was given, it was discovered that the father of Davis had made a will which has since been proved, whereby he has devised the land to others. On the same day the note was executed suit was brought upon it and judgment obtained. Petitioner had it not in his power at the time the judgment was obtained to give security for the appeal — thinks that he could have settled it but for the interference of others, and did not know at that time of the probate of the will. The certiorari was dismissed by the circuit court, and the petitioner appealed to this court. We think there is not sufficient reason given for not appealing. If the petitioner was not prepared with security the day the judgment was rendered, he might, for aught that appears, have given it afterwards. The statute allows two days within which to take an appeal. The fact that others interfered to prevent a settlement constitutes no reason for not appealing, nor does the fact that he did not know of the probate of the will. He knew of the existence of the will and bought the land upon a speculation, relying on Davis’s covenant for his indemnity. In fact the statement of these grounds for not appealing shows that the first ground stated, that he could not give security, is a mere pretence. He manifestly did not wish to appeal. If he had desired to do so, there was nothing to prevent it. Let the judgment be affirmed.