Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-10
OFFICIAL.
Opinions of the supreme Court of the state
of Tennessee, at Nashville, December
Term, 1855.
Morgan & Co. vs.. Coopsr.


On the lst of July, 1851, the plaintiff received
seUen different judgments agsints Wood & Hart, be-
fore justice Of Bedford county, amounting in the
aggragste, 20 upwards of fourteen hundred dollars
The name CT Cooper, the defendant, was entered as
stdyoT, by the justice, under authority Of the follow
ing instruments, sddrefsel TO said justice.
''Ar. W. T. Price: Sir-Ycu will enter my name
as stay Of execution on fcs judgments that Morgan
& Co obtained before you en- the 1st day Of July,
against Wood Hart for SOM eight nine hun
dred dollars, and costs Of suit. the 81 day July,
1897. J. L COOPER, Seat"
Ga tie day following the date Of said paper, All
of JuIy, Cooper took from Wood. one Of the firm Oi
WoOd y Hart conveyance for land and negroes,
IN the nsiGre Of Q Mortgage. The conveyance is
made TO Cooper himself Eiih power OF sale; and
an unlimited discretion 10 dispose Of the property,
Pu5nely or privately, en- such terms, and az such
time IS he may th'u6 best, 10 meet the payment Of
the debts and judgments 'heicn specified Tor which
Cooper had become i.ije as he surety and staycr
for Mood & Har', cr one OF them. Among the debts
specified is he following: "aiso one uj j-ment in ia.
vcr Of Morgan Co Of Nashville. Tennessee, Civ
en- lst day Of July, 1851, fer Sl4GG 90 Judgment
against Wood & llalt, and stayed by said J, L.
Cooper"
Before entering The name of Cooper as stayOr,
the foregoing paper altered so TO insert the
word instead of FIVE, and by adding the words
''or moore before the word dollars. The proof is
not sufficient TO establish, that the alterations we're
y y
After the expiration Of the stay executions were
issued on the several Judgments; and thersupon
Cooper appealed, ny certiorari, to have them
brought up into the Circuit Court, to be quashed,
the ground that, BY foTcs of the foregoing paper
he was not legally bound as stsyOr.
The Circuit Judge held, that he was not bound,
and quashed the execution; and the plaintiffs ap-
pealed in error.
The legal effect of the deed Of the 4th Of July,
ou! Of view, the judgment would be unquesIionsbly
correct. The paper upon which the justice acted,
is, n its original form, insufficient TO have author
lied to the justice to enter the name of Cooper as
stayOr: and even if sufficient, as altered, it could
not be regarded as binding on Cooper, upon the
proof in the recOrd-it not appearing that the al
terations were with his knowledge, or by his au>
thOrity.
But, the fact of his takin the deed on the day af-
ter his name had been entered IS stsyor, wholly
changes the complexion Of the case, ia our view.
He is party TO the deed It was made TO him,
as well for his indemnity as for the security OF
the debts; aad he is by implication, constituted
trustee for the creditors BY the reeials of the deed
he is estaPpsd deHy his liability as stayor, for
the fact is expressly recited in the deed True, the
description Of the several judgments is not specific
The amounts are aggregated; andfjr the gross sun,
as one judgment, in favor OF Morgan Co, sgginst
Wood Hast, obtained on the LIST Of July 1857; the
defendant, Cooper is indemnifed, the stsyor.
The want of a more minute description Of the judg
ments, IN the deed, IS no objection.
The description is amply suficieni-in the abs
sence of any proof Of other judgments between the
same parties, ON the same day-to demonstrate to
moral certainty, that the debt provided for in
the deed, is the debt evidenced by the several
judgments The description in the deed is ample,
TO enable the defendant to avail himself Of the slp-
ulated indemnify, in the event Of his having, as
stayor to discharge The judgments. To hold him
to his liability therefore, is only to give effect TO his
undertaking in the sense in which he himself in
tended it should have effect; of this he cannot just.
ly complain, AMI we do so upon the principle, that
the deed created esoppe upon him to gainsay his
liability as sayor To hold otherwise would be- it
seems 10 u.s. to trifs with the adm nistrstOH Of JUS
tice.
The judgment will be reversed, and the petition
and supersedsas be dismissed And upder the
code, see 3l37, 3l3s, judgment will be rendered
here, in favor Of the plaintiff, as therein provided
MCKISNEY.
A correct copy: J. P. CLARK, Clerk