Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-11-02
ORR


- -t'a-A OF Eae E,-- chfe-@s
seDter.1'. creme icoaat o. she stnts
De1iverad, at EkElorsAiAes
There ia legnis .ls5sst -sasa.i,,sf -
BE tiop ~ sss.. Largs 80 Isnnss - q 81
le re- no error in lfllis tjndg na el Z ne asst
s 5e. tssff mazda ms be plaintiff IN 'erfo1s ~ 20
.isi8k 2OIufhelde5i from. -. SINUS % 'Deh's
The defeudenF be satse Y. Nas aefhogeaged pc
~ trs-@ss,ss AID IT g. Said, 6id not, law Iske
s, hfors iss DO Wlede neht This objection is 0l-
f-.kl. = err causs q deed boFedate long before
i--sS,s u he warrant and for tappeafsin
ne record, may have been proved as q common Law
fDstftu5ent-t 70 have been exeeafedst SIS date II
50, Il took eject then The record does not mega
tive this, or show that the Acknowledgment was The
only proof, and he Circuit Judge cannot be PIT in
sTor u6less this were shown Secondly, because
The plaintiff below 10 The sexual possession of,
the leBdsinjUtsd and, as the eause stood; did not
need any dersignmedt Of 9stle The next error as
signed is, that the warrant did not show thatthe
land njuredby che act Of the aiutifi in error lay
in Cooke comfy. This vas not Necessary The proof
showed it, and thEt Nas e1foienS. BodehkafaeF vs..
BodeBhQmeTsa Hum 264f rit Sc next sad the
warrant is in form trsspass via e. aTInisANhtni II
should beia case for oensegueutial damages This
is uDtenable by the same sdthoriy. s Hum. 264
The form Of the warrant IS nothing. The Justice
must decide on the evidenoe. Besides some Of the
proof shoEsa direct ri urys The charge Of the
Circuit Judge Ss next DIRECTED tesabue Weeau' see
overflow the Plsiht ssisnd. it followed the case Of
Harris Vss Miller - bfeiFsaBspt los. Ard ia all
other respects seems free Of objection Affirm the
judgment s-ss7s- asA sr'i 7WErOHT.
---4---a.- --. 81 -.--
3. f. AeFarlaadyssI75oksf Bry1r-I syfBs o6nsFsr-
It is nsU necessary dor7the Discriminate of The
present csuse, TO decide wheeler not as-bei ween
Mcfarland and Caw0od5 che original parties to the
contFact-par0l sEldsncoeof thsIaatteT SEQ up by
Mcfarland in the bill, SIS evideueeof his lasiiity
hoeu adm fa5c an rh 4F 4ea
written instrument called receipt, did not embrace
the whole contract, though y is clearly established
by the proof, that said pafer did not IN fact, con
tain the terms Of the whole agreement, nor
Wss it intended or under TODD by the parties,
to be the evidence Of tins agreement Blu,
be this it may, the proof places the fact
beyond question, thst y hen Cav oe Transferred
his interest ia the contract 10 Bryan & Hooke
and assigned TO them said Teoeipt, be distinctly in
formed Bryan, with whom Ne lTanss cOn tOok place,
what the whole terms Of the contract we're, accord
ing 70 the parol agree ment between him and Nc
Fariand and that Bryan was fully informed that the
paper called the receipt old 1T contain the whole
agreement, and that il was net the evidence Of tbs
contract then transferred TO himH and HOoke; and
that. with such positive knowledge, he fully ed
to the p6rol terms Of the agreement, and declared
himself wiling % trust and rely upon MeFarland's
verbal promise for performance thereof Upon this
stste Of the proof We hold that Bryan & HQoke must
abide and be bound by The teIms of he contract
fully and fairly represented 10 them at he time Of
their dealing with C8EoOd. There is nothing in the
record induce suspicionthat CaEood did not fully
and truly state the terms Of the agreement between
himself and Mcfarland. Admitting, however, for
the sake of argument, that, a. between Cawood and
Mcfarland, the written instrument would, 10 law
Lave been Tegarded.ss the D Il innate evidence Of
their contraei; yet in fact, CaW0od understood it
Otherwise and IN this view, ef4esehted 10 Bryan
thai the contract. or essential part Of it, rested
in psrcl ard wi this distinct understanding Bryan
accepted the transfer for himseifsnd Ho0ke. They
are prtOuded from insisting that CaWoOd was mis-
taken in he legal eteeto the original contract with
Mcfarland and must stand NJ on the Contract as
made by them with CaWOOd.- IL was certainly CON-.
peteut 20 Cawood and Mcfarland, after the making
of their Contract ana before it's transfer 10 Bry
Hooke, to vary ilsterms By verbal BgrCem-ut sup
posing It 10 have In originally Judy Fedu ed 10
wiring. AMI if CawoOd, before Inc transfer o
Bry ~ HJOke, had with The assem- Of McEs,rl snd.
expressed or implied, changed tie terms OF The CON
trsotiH any ma eriai respect, and the contract as
thus varied fully and lsirly taledto Bryan and
accepted by him, he cannot be heard complain Of
the change In the absence Of maud, all be can de-
msnd s. the performance Of the agreement accord
ing 20 Ihe terms and conditions, as represented TO-
and understood BY him at The time it wss assigned
to him.
The decree is correct. and it viii be affirmed.
MCBlEEEY.