Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-11-27
NUMBER 2O8.
DECISIONS OF rHE sUPREsIE couar
OFFICIAL
Opinions Of the Supreme Court Of the
state OF Tennessee, az KnsxVIUe, ssp-
TENDER 4 ERIN, 1859.

Opinions 81 the supreme Court Of the
state OF Tsnnessee, az KnSxvIIlss ssp-
.tember Term, 1853.
Price Jones.
1t appears that in this case Price sold jones q
safe, The title to which failed and the latter sued
/ the former for damage in consequences Of such
failure, and had verdict and judgment in his "a
Eor from which Price has appealed in error e this
The facts Of the case are these: One Grigsby, as
the agent Of company to whom The safe belonged
sold and delivered it to Winstead upon a credit Of
one year, Out the title was not to pass to him. but
was % remain in the company until be paid for IT,
and 4 he failed to do the trade was 10 be AZ al
end. While thus in bis possession he sold il 10
one Willis in payment Of an antecedent debt and
Willis sold it to the defendant Price who sold it 70
the plaintiff Jones, as before stated
Winstead having failed to paw Grigsby for the
safe, he, the agent OF the company, demanded Il
OF Jones, who yielded 70 their superior title and
again purchased the safe OF Grigsby am. paid him
for it.
Upon these facts the Circuit Judge did not err IN
lnstrueting the jury thagWinstead had acquired NJ
title to the safe and could communicates none 70 VII
lis, or purchaser under him. Even If Willis had
so PAID the purchase money as TO be enabled %
elalm the position Of an innocent purchaser with
out notice, sul that doctrine can have no APP
phcati0n here. The contest was q question of right
and not of notice. Tbs maxim cdUeat smDfor ap-
Piled and Of course, II the person from whom the
purchase Is made has not the legal title the pur-
cud>tf GdH none. II can make difference
that Winstead was in possession Of the safe. The
cases Of Bradshaw vs.. Thomas. YER 497. and
Gambling vs. Read. Meigs K. 2Si furnish direct an-
thority,upon this question.
1t is next insisted tlat the Circuit Judge erred in
permitting the declarations Of Wmstead TO be prov
ed and go to the jury. But in this also, are SAT-
istied he did not err. These declarations if we IN
derstand Alright those to which the objection refers
consisted OF what Winstead said the terms Of
the trade between him and Grigsby, 70 the witness
Huntsman in whose care the safe had been left when
he came to get it, They were made at a time vixen
the Company and Winstead were the only parties in
interest, and previous to the sale made BY him to
Willis and upon well settled principles admis-
sIbie in evidence Green EV. sec. $50, lS9 100.
Nor do we think the Circuit Judge erred in refus-
ing to grant new trial upon the affidavit Of Price,
the plaintiff in error that he was taken By surprise
in the admission of Grigsby's evidence; and that
upon q second trial he can prove the same untrue,
because, passing by the inquiry as TO whether upon
the facts disclosed in this record the party has any
legal ground 70 say he was surprised and without
inquirng whether it is probable if GFgsbys testi-
mony we're overth own, the result would be die
ferent it is sufficient that Price does not pro
duee the affidavit of any witness cOntFadlcting tho
statement Of Grigsby or offer any reason for
lot doing so; butrests the application upe. his own
affidavit In Scott vs.. Wilson, Cookies Rep Sl5,l
Judge Overflow in delivering the opinion Of the court
says: on motion for new trial any ground
resting the information of Others the movers own
affidavit alone cannot be sufficient The afdavito Of
the person possessing knowledge at least the az
fdaYlt OF some disinterested individual, to whom
the information was communicated, should be pro
dueedr
The action of the circuit court IS also sustained
by Riley vs.. the State, Hum. Sac.
Upon the whole, we see no error in this Judgment
A true copy. Test: c. W NE,sov, Clerk