Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-16
OFpICas.
CpInIsns OF Ihe Supreme Court OF she state
OF Tennessee, .at NaShvIiie, December
Term Is5s. u --.--


Fls was an scon Bf EJECT men. a the ciers csar Of De
ss eous IN which the plainG heoE had aaEnet and tie
defeniast has appealed ia error e MS Court,
rey upon sersn ieees amt rsOcins asd in tl cbzacer
Court at McMnnviile 70 The reading O. sheh e desenaas
Iecc. the Circuit Conrt overnsd the etoa aud permit
records read asa part of the plaiats title. This
TS isSs IN had been ranteI By the sssse Of Ten
nessee to Hopkins he died ntestaie, leaving large
s Ssrs n ia amer his death in the year 1894 % decree
in The Chancrv Coart Al 8cinnye, had partition Of
tel % ne heir Of JaIlts VAUGHAN, sister iuiesats.
10 the sane year he year following, the children and
ton made e ts lands hal al1tsd 70 them, and
tract dispute was ssnsd to Thomas b Vaughan
In hs bills proceedings in both Of these eass certain OF
the heirs Who then appear % have been nfass were nsde de
this suhPenas are found ner does u appear Eehe
anita er ever spre with process or notice by publication
otherwise required by Law As to this ereor are silent
Morris any order appointing guardian al @ iound. And
IN % og he transcrpts the answer Of the guardian d Item
appear But in the deeree In both eases s reed
that the causes Cane be heard and heard before the
Chaneelr ~ ne m aud Of the minor deendants y
their guardian s John D. Lusk, when appeared to the
satisfaction the Court, &c, aud ater stating In the decree
rights equities Of the parties the Court goes and de-
s ssra mat these decrses are now to bseId vofor TIE
want Of service upon these infant defendants.
The defendant far as We can see s and has no
the they made foral and regular IN no way CON
cerned hm The themselves do complain, but have
aeusee in these divisions Cor nearly qaite twenty
The seeks attack and everturn them eoatery
ho the possession Of tract Of land to which he
We are of opinion his should not be permitted and that as to
Cent n G6,SeeT s Superior Court within the sense and
meaning the Law, contra distinguished from Al nierer
Court II has general power and authority g make Partition OF
hs jurisdiction existed at common has declared
nj Ilvr man since.
csp in no iast ~ns be cIailsd validity
shall he tested BY the rules applicable to Court Of peu
liar, special and limited authority
When therefore, that the Court q ChAneey at Nc
MinnTe had jurisdiction over the sai5eet ..s o. @ e
an1u
the infant defendants bging Represented q me-. sArae a
them especially after such lapse Of time, presume that ne de
sndxnts duly served with procs Or IN some Esy Dad te
notice 70 give The Court JURISDICTION Of nsr per
Tbe subpenas in cause are not required to be enrolled, and
may not be IL they and uy wit the evidence o. noss
10 parties before Court be and are often lost and
cannot be copied into transcript tl
AID, now in like ths 70 y hefo were no O
penas, a service, notice OF any kindf
The rule for Jurisdiction laid dowp IN Peaeosse vs. Bali &
out o. the Jurisdiction coart, but t4t which se
eaIy appears be And on the contrary, h9hg ssii De
INTENDED Jurisdiction CT inferior Court bat
that which Is expressly alleged
This rule was adopted y Judge Reese delivering the opinion
Of the Court in the cause % Bren vs. Hart aud
KeTeassheirs Blythe 0nph, X asl 10 AM lleal
hese it Will appesr that Court OF Chanesy y supreme
Court within the sense of the rule.
The case Kicreases heirs Blythe Involved ques
priucie seems b u.s. 70 Be very anzhoes 70 the present
From that would seem that where on the return OF pro-
found aavt Of non resdsnee made win prayer
action Of the Court compel the appearance OF me de
fendant tie record only Sotcs that the Court Preeo
take the bill for conss, determined the stter involved
without setting forth that this was done asr iH pU5ieeo
such decree, though reversible appeA 3 not void, umPh
r. 37S
And on the same subject White Albertson, Dew, 2i2
Wood. u Mass -. Britain vs. CoEen,
Humph 3Ie, 3l9 Green. Ev., Sec ~
We question the rule that requires service OF
notice upon the parties Ia decree taken contrary TO the
course Of Court void, Swan 454, do 91, Dov, pa
But we take certain things in this edac that the
ties those DEGREES properly before the Curt that all
things were ightfHlly done --. 80
Judge Reese Britain COwan, Humph 5s SS after
speaking Of struggles OF the Cnccry Court against teehn
rules and power from mode OF practice to from
time necessary parties brcugh- before Il aud
inaFtal in which much OF the pubic
business is done and incauousy the pers and records
pertaining kept reuars We have strong
policy cherish substance than FORMS and
10 hesitate and insist upon before pTCnounce the
DEGREES judgments Courts Of record void, when
brought eollaterally in question
follows of II the Chancery Court had the proper
uriseon that thing also WILL in this contest be taken
70 have been 1eSuiar. Sneed, 81.
TIE objections the defence the OF Harriet Vaughan
and others which Harrison purchased have nothing N
them.
Judgnl nt AFFIRMED. WEiSHT.