Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-06-18

beloneinRto said Meriwether on the South bon,5s-
hue Of fifty acre tract, in the name Of G. H. P.
Mari; running thence East IS poles TO q black
walnut bash, two persimmon trees marked for
pointers thence North 60 POI Is to sycamore, beech
aad Elm marked for the corner; thence East go
poles to an Ash and Cypress, marked as pointer;
thence South 344 poles to an Elm, blackberry and
Sycamore bushes, marked as q corner-Ash and Cy-
press marked as pointers; thence West sos poles 70
cotton wood Edward Thursbys North West corner;
thence North with the East boundary line Of said
800 sere tract 2S4 poles to the beginning: Surveyed
this 10th dag of August, A D., 1886
W. U. WATsoN, D 8
For 18th District"
Regarding this survey as furnishing the true
boundaries Of his land, Richard MeriWether con
unued has possession which was adverse, claiming
under his purchase from ShaFn IN accordance Titb
the lines Of this survey, until bis death ia 1870
leaving his WidoWsnd ehildrea in possession-which
they have continued to this day, under ike claim
Of ownership. At his death, many Of his children
we're infants The widows dover was not assigned
her, and BY some arrangements between her and the
children she has continued the possession and enjoy
ment Of the property Of the children lived
with since the death Of her husband Richard
T. MeriEether never claimed South Of the line which
he had run and marked between the grants OF Whea-
ton Iisdale and Tbursby nor did his widow and
children until some after the institution Of this suit
when becoming alarmed lest il might be decided
against tbemthey caused suit to be brought gains
one Larman who held under the THIRSTY gront-f0r
lsDds lying South Of the liue and this sun has been
decided in favor Of Lqrman.
II viii, therefore be seen that Richard 7. Meri-
Wether and bis widow and heirs have had a contin-
ued actual ad ierse pOsssssi Of part Of the land
in dispute from the tine Of his purchase Of Sharp,
in 1885, till the e0mmencemsh IN # this suit in 1850
holding under said purchase E.Ih the boundaries of
Watson's survey. Upon these facts, we are Of the
opinion their possession must, in law, be held to
= IL. L
surVei nd llst The widow and heirs Of Richard T
Meris cher are iIoteoted, TO that extent, by the
| Act Of 1919 %. Il may be by the first section
! e.-tslgi} By the second section Of the Act Il is
/ WI etled that case Of naked pOssession-one
hJid ng as RESP asser, without excuse unaccom-
panied BY tile, legal or equitable valid or invalid
! or by some kind Of wiring By which 70 determine
the extent " the csses on-must be restricted %
the enclosures actually made. II this we're not So
there would be nothing to indicate the extent Of the
possession, and he WroDgiOer m ght claim without
bounds or limits. Angel, IS But this doctrine
can have no application 10 this case. In Briant vs.
/ Ogden, johnson, p l56, aud Doe W. Campbell
10 do, 4T6, the rule is laid down that adverse pos
session must be marked BY definite boundaries -
And this Court has repeatedly decided that IN
registered deed title bond an entry though not
surveyed furnished evidence Of the extent Of pos
session. Yer, AS, 10 do 49, Suesd, 329 -
And in Chiffon, ct ais vs. Wilson's heirs, Hum,
$685. certificate purpOriing 70 have been issued by
/ the County Court Of Cumberland county, KsDiueky,
in pursuance Of The laws Of that State in which il
vas supposed he land lay, and which declared one
Livingston, under whom Wilson's heirs claimed en-
titled 10 the land in controversy was in connection
with P*r9l side' ee admissible rs defining the ex
INT otths def "a t1is possession. though inadmis-
--be as iHd, T., uCaut evidence Of title
Jpn these au'Lciil ln4 upon The reason Of the
hing cannot u"i cha ESQ. plaintiffs in error
are zoo et'..'. 90. "a r1t above noted. Moreover
We taanVi pe'c.ive sby they my not call TO lheir
aid .bene u Wheaton & Tisdale's Entry and
grant. They are the assignees Of these grantees
and deuce their title from and in privity with them
The grant and entry both IN their calls define the
boundary between il and The MeLemore & Vanlx
claim; and Richard 7. MeriWether and his heirs
held The 6343 acres TO this boundary disreeardng
the actual survey claimed by McLemore Vaulx
Did they not hold under the Wheaton & Tisdale En-
try and grant? Suppose Wheaton Tisdale mad SO
held, would they not have been protected against
the claim under McLemOre Vaulx' actual survey
And are not plaintiffs in error in their shoes? The
question is not as to the effect Of Sharp's deed to
MeriWetber, because it calls to bound on the North
upon MeLemOre & Ysulx's surrey?
But the question is, did Richard T. MeriUsther
and his heirs hold possession Of The land 10 dispute
as claimed By MOLemOre VsulK? AID ifthey did,
he extent Of that possession? Aud we have already
shown they may resort TO any paper writing, with
Each they are connected defining this. Il is the
rOssessiOn Of the plaintiffs in error that mpairs the
o, and, BY that possession alone, the defence Of
IsriWether's heirs must be adjudgsd
B't If this were not so, upon reading the prof.
his record We cannot doubt that Richard
.aeriEether, being dissatisfied with Sharp's first
/ deed caused him, the 18th Of August 1886 Il
execute to him a second deed for the 6344 acres OF
land, in accordance with the call Of Walson's sur
Vey and that under it he held aud claimed the land
Till his death. This deed is lost and cannot be pro
duced; but sufficient and proper grounds were laid
] IN ha fha -.
deRce as TO the execution and contents Of this deed
and such proof was given to the jury. W. TFiee,
who was an sttestng witness to the deed, proves
that he vas one Of the chain carriers when Watson
made the survey, and that Sharp and Meriwether
were both present and that Watson drew the deed.
and Sharp signed and executed it, he and Watson
becoming witnesses to it. Il is clear that the land
surveyed by Watson was the land embraced in the
deed The words Of the witness are: 1--WE did sign
the sane as Witnesses-Watson wrote it (the deed
and Sharp signed it, conveying the land 10 Meri-
| Wether. watson Is dead, but his evidence as to
this mstter-giYen when alive, on former trial Of
this cause, upon OATH in court, where be was open
to examination by either party-is detailed at length
by many witnesses, and is if possible, more conolu
siVe as to the existence and contents of this deed
than Is the evidence Of Triee. Aud to our mind It
IS manifest that the very object Of making this sur
vey was the execution Of this second deed more to
the views and purposes Of the parties as to Ehsi
was right.
The fact that no traces Of this deed are found in
the office OF the Clerk OF the County Court, or il
the Registers Office, and other evidence contained
in this record Of character merely negative, can
not be allowed % impair shake testimony so full
and positive as that OF Triee and Watson
This being so, it is manifest that Richard I
MeriHether's widow and heirs are protected under
the act Of 1873, c. IS, J. 10 The extent Of Wat
sons survey; and that this possession Of his heirs
may be connected with his possession. But they
themselves, before the suit and after their fathers
death, had the seven years possession reqIired by
the act; and he having had, in his lifetime posses
sion under the proper deed and assurance Of tile
and they being in by descent under him, equally
protected. Hubbard & Wood vs. Woods Lessee,
Sneed 279.
And 1t cannot be necessary, or MATERIAL thai
either his widow or heirs should have had actu I
knoHlsdge Of the existence Of this deei, thai
Richard 7. MeTiEeiher had taken il and held under
it. nor that they should know that he held under
any particular deed. 10 many cases it would BE-
impossible TO furnish proof Of such knowledge and
t. require it would def at the protection the statute
intended TO give altogether. TILE deeds may be
lost or destroyed, and may 70 the knoW WI
edge Of t1e ancestors family, even if they be eapa
bic Of understand n (; them, or Of having any
knowledge upon the beet. In this il is clear
that Richard 7. MerIWslhsr's widow and heirs held
and claimed this land, because he had purchased il
and paid for il. And We hold that the character
and extent Of their possession will be adjudged BY
the Of his title papers and the extent Of his
possession, whether they hsd actual knowledge Of
them or not. The parol gift Of q slave to an infant
however young, though void in law, and though he
may be utterly ignorant Of IT, WILL nevertheless in
fh,h oaAz4r Of fat