Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-10
OFFICIAL.
Opinions Of the Supreme Court OF the State
of Tennessee, deIir cred AT Nashville, al
December Termg 1888. t-e


Cornsrs Fris Kirkpatick Heirs and Administrator.
coPsusnt sri John Fitzpatrick defendant inteste were
Partu > f sTsrd years n AID grzt iH. In Decemher
Which va rltd to rit1g Aier this, in Msres, 1854, e
repnee atrstors Of all matters in be
msde shieh said sa-otor snd the parties
guessed in II seems that tie DILIGENTLY which produced this
AZ th.ir extent and elect.
The u Is5 signed by parties attessd by
and is thus briefly by the; I've find unou
fg lHsrt tai fars i ialetei said an e sOs a.,
and "a RzareA . n indebtei 70 AID nrH said FzPat
Ia Peter traet,' an
9ther the ~ act AM saii Fsrris
'Nil Place, upo paying tp trick si4S5 A. Each party
took aoerdnsy Ie deeds Ger all these lands had
teen made = Fzriek tyiausl z but il IS Omitted on al
quentiy acre partnership property
1t that tn parties ed with der settlement
Of Is53 and in Mira, t-5i, sa.ti rsir accounts o. fur
eteut friers = review ant fu y . iu hsR This
done lahoyi'r- and the es1t seated
writing that Paris inssd Il hsiug iEd=b,ei
S2st2 pos In ther prey,us settlement, only
S2es "hc vas ten lii Opou ms aWar ihe PARTIES say in
Element ich the within condensed temen us enzl
CONCLUSION Of our o d l-4rtnerssip BareL 3 Is 4
ftis proved that the Of the Of the land vas
brought before these understood to
be QUESTION having prTi sly divided By the parties but
oul their ispu There can bs nc doubt bat
that such the understanding Of the parties that they
div5outhcy had made cnly aerei about
their partnership dealings and accounts which alone sub
yeTy som fs this Fifr,srieE iBitrss his ac q, s,,
enL nst iris upon his e III title To PerssnalIy eou
mat acton 1nd compel Fzprek 20 make him 'i.s under
their pa tnersAp laS d1, this bill vas Ell 20.
Can tie object and OF this bill The facts have
stated, be resitedl The Chancellor th1g rot and 50
The objections Of tAe defendant are al ui.isnaale
l. The Argument IS nsour thai under the statute Of fraads.
expressed the Of SHED Stamps Sneed 81 aud
the authorities there cited, in relation TO the
forth the writing the particulars 4 the CONTRACT render
this ting void This doctrine does sply case ike
this There the lands belonged 70 the parties firm
we'll described in U deeds AMI nothing required
division tsmse designate tracts assigned
20 each, W such terms wuud he well understood gen
ersl app caiiou BY which thy we're known The Peter ta
the Kiey rsrt and the NH tract sufficient M
uncertainty ambiguity existed, It could only BE- expsined y
psroI. .sr.- .- ... =.
n there two nil tracts proof would be reqced to aer
taia Wt Oh But here there mill trart
owned by the fran, and there upceTtiinfy.
g Tia 81 40 paid By FiFris part the eous
Grafton condition th transfer q trac.
lies; rom the that the division Of the had
Oonnecti0H Oh hu By the parties
i was then sunpoei that FAR iuiebei the arm 2,
% the half o. which FtZpetTiak entitled, ana that
stated injection via the partition Of .aLd
he tina, the tier nte1ded II this way Ter upon half
Of te land assigned tie former for payment, that
would Be uHnlJct Hahle So The -ald rrTtrly
But then i Afterwards the sWar Of
tors that this wasal is;ase, @ nothing all from
Frrsis his partner This c6rtnly all G-uily
ts and if the title he mill under
TIE previous written agreement
Il agPegrs thst Fitzpatrick professional Of iuf0r
nation and expref and his partner la0orous uninofl
Ell They unequal IN this respect and IL " not
pTsing that mistakes might In the wund
most probably be against fai5. This may for the
very great dileene the gesult when their compcaied
counts were Placsl in The bands Of competent for sd
ustment.
we thak Justice has been b the Chancellor and affirm
his decree nakng Ire Injunction Perpua5 and ysstnC the tile
0 the mill trsCti IN Ferris. CIRJTEEEs
correct copy, J. ?. CL.RK, CLERK.