Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Green, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAWRENCE v. COCKE.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 26-27.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1847.
    PARTITION. Vendees bound by that made by their vendors.
    Where tenants in common make a partition of a certain part of the land, and afterwards sell their respective interests in the entire tract, to different purchasers, such. partial division will not be disturbed upon suit brought by one of the purchasers for partition. The partition of the vendors is binding on the vendees, and only the portion remaining undivided will be partitioned, and that without attempting to equalize the division made by such vendors.
    Partition by parol.
    This case does not show whether the partition between the vendors was made by piarol or in writing-, but from tbe statement that it was made “by a distinctly designated line,” it was probably in writing. If the partition was not by registered deed, but was by parol simply, the vendees must have known of such partition when they purchased. In the case of Railroad v. Love, 3 Head, 67, there is a dictum that partition to be valid, must be in writing-; but in the case oí Meacham v. ileacham, 7 Pickle, 533, it was held, without noticing said dictum, that a parol partition is valid, because it is not a sale, and, therefore, not within the statute o£ frauds. (See also Saunders v. Haclcev. 10 Lea, 203.)
    Williams and McCarty, being tenants in common of a certain tract of land, divided the cleared portion between themselves by a distinctly designated line of division. Afterwards Williams sold bis balf of tbe entire tract toLawrence, and McCarty sold to- Cocke. The wild land not having been divided by the parties, a petition was filed to obtain a decree for the division thereof. Commissioners by order of court divided the wild lands according to quality and quantity, without reference to- the cleared lands which had previously been divided. The court confirmed the report, and the defendant appealed, alleging that, although the wild land was equitably divided, yet in the partition of the cleared land by the respective vendors, the share of the petitioner’s [complainant’s] vendor was most valuable, and that the court should therefore have ordered the partition of the wild lands to be so made that each portion of the whole tract in the final divisan should be of equal value.
   Green, J.:

The commissioners were properly directed to look alone to the wild land, as the vendors were tenants in common only of this portion of the tract.

.Decree affirmed.