Case ID: tenn_27/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Turley, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clark vs. Wright et als.
    
    1. The purchase of land at execution sale, and a recovery of possession by writ of ejectment, is 'prima, facie evidence pf legal title in the purchaser.
    2. A statement in a deed of trust, by him who executes it, that he held an equitable , title only, to land in controversy, is no evidence of that fact as against purchasers at execution sale. #
    Wright was in possession of one hundred and sixty acres of land, in DeKalb county. A judgment was obtained against him in the supreme court of Tennessee, and execution thereupon issued, and by the sheriff of DeKalb county levied on the land on the 3'lst day of October, 1840. It was sold oh the 19th day of December, 1840, and Tubb & Kelly became the purchasers, and a deed was executed to them by the sheriff. After the purchase at execution sale, Tubb & Kelly instituted an action of ejectment against Wright, and recovered possession of the land. After the levy of the execution, to wit, on the 27th of November, 1840, Wright conveyed the land to Clark, in trust for the benefit of creditors. The land was also sold for the taxes of 1840 and 1841, and purchased by Tubb & Kelly. This bill was filed in the chancery court at Smithville, by Clark, as trustee; charging that Wright at the time of the execution and tax sales had only an equitable interest, the legal title being in the heirs of Dale, deceased; and praying that the title of Dale’s heirs be divested; the purchase of Kelly and Tubb be declared void and the land sold, and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of the debts of the creditors mentioned in the deed of trust. The deed of trust executed by Wright to Clark was exhibited, which recited, that he held a title bond for the land, and not the legal title, but that the legal title was in Dale’s heirs. The chancellor, Ridley, dismissed the bill at the hearing; and the complainant appealed.
    
      J. B. Moore and 8. Turney, for complainant.
    See 1 Yerg. 5; 3 Humph. 111? 1 Humph. 451; Meigs 4, 5, 6, 7.
    
      
      M. M. Brien, for the defendant.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion, that the decree of the chancellor in this •case, should be affirmed, because it appears that previous to the 27th of November 1840, the date of the deed of trust, and in which the complainant as trustee, claims the one hundred and sixty acres of land in dispute, viz: on the 31st of October 1840, the same had been levied on as the property of Wright, the vendor of the deed of trust, by virtue of an execution issued from the supreme court of the State of Tennessee at Nashville, and the same was sold by the sheriff of DeKalb county, on the 19th day of December 1840*, to defendants Tubb & Kelly, and duly conveyed by him to them, and that they afterwards gained possession of the premises by action of ejectment — this, to say the least of it, is prima fade evidence that they acquired the legal title by the sale; and even if it would, now be competent for the complainant to show that Wright, under whom he and the defendants claim, though in different rights, had no legal title to the land at the time of the execution sale, he has not done so. The statement in the deed of trust, executed by Wright that he held this tract of land by bond horn E. W. Dale, is no evidence of the fact, as against these defendants Tubb & Kelly. They are not such parties to the bond as to be bound by its admissions and statements — and, anything contained in it, militating against their rights, should have been otherwise proven.

This not having been done, the bill was properly dismissed as to them.

The decision upon this point, makes it unnecessary to in-' vestigate the validity of %e tax sale, under 'which defendants also seek to protect themselves against the deed of trust.

Let the decree be affirmed.