Case ID: tenn_37/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WRIGHT, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Henry vs. Charlotte Keys et. al.
    
    1. Chancery Jurisdiction. In vacating satisfaction of judgment at law. Act of 1847, ch. 191. 'Where a plaintiff, in an execution upon a judgment at law, has bought the defendant’s land, sold by the sheriff for the. satisfaction of said execution, and satisfaction thereof has been entered, but said sale proved to be void, on account of the sheriff’s omission to notify the tenant in possession, of the time and place of said sale; it is held, that the plaintiff may have said satisfaction vacated in a Court of Equity.
    2. Cases Cited.' Bumf ass vs. Gh-egory, 8 Terg.-; Cowan vs. Edde, 1 Sneed, 291; Crawford vs. Roberts, MSS., Knoxville. September, 1853.
    EROM BLOUNT.
    This hill was filed in the Chancery Court at Mary-ville. The complainant had a judgment at law against one John Keys, upon which execution was issued and levied upon a tract of land, which was sold by the sheriff, and purchased by the complainant. It seems that the sheriff neglected to give notice to the tenant in possession, of the time and place of said sale; and the execution having been satisfied, this bill was filed against the heirs of said Keys, to have said satisfaction vacated. The defendants demurred to the bill, which was disallowed; and they were permitted to answer, and did file their answer, relying, among other defenses, upon the statute of limitations. The cause was heard at the November Term, 1856, by- Chancellor Van Dyke, who decreed for the complainant. The defendants appealed.
    
      T. 0. Lyon, for the complainant.
    Maynard, McGtnley, Br,own and Wallace, for the defendants.
   WRIGHT, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this cause, we affirm the decree of the Chancellor.

Previous to the passage of the act of 1847, ch. 191, it seems to have been doubted, ' whether complainant could have any relief in equity. At law he could not; Bumpass vs. Gregory, 8 Yerg., and authorities there cited. In many of the States, equity granted relief, and vacated the satisfaction, upon the ground of mistake and ignorance.

In 1847, the Legislature of this State gave the creditor a remedy by scire facias. This act has been construed to extend to a case like this; and that the creditor could have his scire facias at law. Edde vs. Cowan, 1 Sneed, 291.

If jurisdiction existed in equity, before this act, as we incline to think it did, then the act did not take it away. At all events, we can see no reason now, since the act, to drive the creditor to a Court of Law.

In the case of Crawford vs. Roberts, (MSS.,) decided by this Court, in 1853, the creditor- had relief, and the satisfaction of the judgment was vacated in equity, in a case involving, as to this point, the same principles as this.

The Chancellor’s decree will .be affirmed.