Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-10-08
OFFICIAL.

sD,tufrlss OF Ihe Supreme CDurt 81 tlae state
81 TSsnnessoe. DsliFsFea NJ Jackson, at
:. 3. Hons AID oshsrs rs. r. H. and susuu Ballard.
The complsinants are the children Of Abigail Lou
isa Hobbs and such claims to be entitled, in
msinder 10 the slaves in controversy under the viii
Of their grandfather, Ezekial Mckoy, made in
1888 The mother and father of complainants
took possession under his va and enjoyed the life
estate; and in ls48 the mo her died, The father
sbou, that time soli the slaves TO the elder Ballard
the compliments beirg al hen under age The
eldest arrived at age in 1885 The sal Ballard
held possession under his purchase till Is47 when
he died and the slaves passed under his will to the
defendants against whom this bill was f ed in 1856
The defense relied upon is the statue Of limita-
tons
Ballard, the purchaser, was certainly guilty Of a
conversion, for which Of action accrued, at
the date Of his purchase TO the compliments but
IS none Of them we're then Of age, they vol not
any Of them be bound, the principle Of the case
of Shute vs. Wade until the youngest attained his
majority, which period has rot ct arrived and
consequently, if here nothing more the sat-
ute would not be in their way. But in lo41, when
the elder Ballard died, and the defend obtained
the possession end claimed the slaves as their own.
one or more of the remainder men was of age; and
the question arises, whether this was not a new
conversion. upon which the statute would run
against all upon the doctrine Of the same
The possession Of successive ErOng-doers cannot be
Each possession is a distinct and independent
wrong for which an action may be brought against
either The state Of things existing at the ime
the tort for which the SUIT nsti u'ed must
control he case The conversion of these defend
ants occurred in 1847 and on this the suit against
them is base9. At that lime one or more Of the
complainsnts, we have said, was Of lawful age
and the suit was not commenced in six years from
that time.
If il be a case in which they could have waived
the tort, and brought an action Of deb and had
actually done go, still the time is sufhc eut &c
create the bar TO that acti Jn-be ng more than six
years.
But it is argued that they may elect TO regard
the conversion Of the eIGer Ballard, when t1ey
we're liafants as creating b , BY waving the
tort and al being hen under age, his executor would
be subject 10 the act Of DEBT until ali arrived
At lawful age To this, there are versl suli rent
answers They have TO- chosen 10 take u at course,
but have sued for the slaves themselves, this
being mere refinue bill, aud not for the vsue.
Mar aud Yer. 300 And if they hal not su, d.
within two years from the qualification of the ex-
ecutor as required by the act Of 1883 an even il
they did not fall under thst act il IS fhcult see
how they couid avoid the 9Th section OF the Act OF
1915, barring all creditors without any saving, 'in
seven years after the death of any debtor
As the death WAS pore than that time before this
suit, the decree of the Chancellor Diminishing the
bill was right, and will be affirmed.
CARUTHERs.
Test N D. WEIOH, Clerk & Matter.