Case ID: tenn_42/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shackelford, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph A. Mabry & Wife vs. Churchwell & Armstrong.
    1, Redemption. Tender. Practice in Chancery. Complainants filed their bill to redeem real estate, and alleging a tender and an offer to pay the redemption money, into Court. Upon the return of process, and without answer, the defendant appeared in Court, and on his motion, the complainants were ordered to pay the money in Court in four days, which they refused to do, and their bill was dismissed. Held, that there appearing other grounds of equities in the bill, aside from the tender alleged, the complainants were entitled to an answer and an investigation'of the facts.
    PROM KNOX.
    This cause was heard by Chancellor Seth J. W. Luckey, at the April Term, 1865, when the bill of complainants was dismissed; from which they appealed,
    G-eorge Brown, for complainants.
    Johk Baxter & Jas. R. Cocee, for respondents.
   Shackelford, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill filed by the complainant as the administrator of G. W. Churchwell and his wife, as the lieirs-at-law of said Churchwell, to redeem the real estate purchased by the defendants. In their bill, with other charges, they state they tendered the redemption money' for the lands, and offered, in their bill, to pay it into Court. On the return of the process, without answer, the defendants appeared in. Court, and, upon motion, the Chancellor directed the money be paid into Court, within the four days of the Term, or their cause would stand dismissed; thereupon, the complainants, in open Court, refused to pay the money, as directed, and the Chancellor dismissed the cause, and the complainants appealed to this Court. Upon an examination of the bill, we find there are grounds of equity jurisdiction stated in the bill, aside from the tender alledged to have been made. The complainants were entitled to an answer, and an investigation of the facts charged in the bill.

The decree of the Chancellor in dismissing the bill was erroneous, and will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.