Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-29
Decisions OF xHE sURmEMs COURr
OFFICIAL.
0passlozs se sne supreme conrs az the
state Of Eennessees as knoxEt1les sePs
TENDER Terms 1883.

state Of Eennessee,. as knoxEtlle, Sep.
TENDER Terms 1883.
Iluany au6 wife, es. Eiokx q. al 49,
The demurrer was not well taken, and tia Chan.
csllor erred in Diminishing the bill and amended
bin. E&AE&AAfl s&4AtA &
The question, is. whether the bill and amendment,
taken together make proper case for equitable re
lief 1t Is true that in the original bill partition was
asked and TO that extent IL the demurrer had been
confined to that part of the bil it might have been
a question whether il were not properthe title not
being clear. But we understand the smended bill
to abandon this branch of the case, and to conflne
itself to o claim for relief, upon the ground OF re-
moving clouds from the share Of complainant Sarah
in the lands inherited from her father. There is also
prayer to be restored TO the possession and to have
q decree for rents.
There is nothing in tho bill. or amended bill, to
show that defendants hive had seven years posses
sion of this land or that the rights Of companants
have in any way been affected by the statute OF
limitations They ara both, therefore, Immediately
interested in the share Of complainant Sarah. ana
entitled to the possession and rents.
And these villa decreed them if the Court Of Chan
Gerry has Jurisdiction icr any purpose the rule DO,
ing if relief can be given as TO any thing, 10 res
tain the case until the whole matter Ia disposed Of
and the rights of the parties settled Yerg' 3z4'
81. 10 do, 1888.
As to the deed purporting to have been executed
by William Hicks, Sr in his lifetime, the oils we
| think makes proper case for relief. The oeiena
ant Nathaniel Hicks, since his fathers deatn, mas
procured this deed TO be proved by q Witness ana
registered Its invalidty does not appear upon It's
face: but if it exists must be made out by PROOF
| dliunde and according to the rule laid down by
Judge Story Section 700 q, furnishes proper case
tor the interference of Court Of Equity. The bill
alleges that this deed is void; and the amended bill
| in effect-alleges that its execution was never
completed. and that it had been abandoned by the
parties. II 80, it should be Cancelled. The inVal
| decd of the ancestor must we think. be regarded
as cloud unon the lands in the hands Of the heir.
In Jones VS. Perry IL Yerg, IS, the rule Is stated
to be seten in this State and elsewhere that Court
| of Equity has the power to cancel void iastru-
| ment whether its character, as such, appear from
| the face of the instrument or otherwise.
If this be So il ia not perceived why the jursdic
ton is not proper as to the ins rument to which
Almony's nane is alleged TO have been forged and
the deeds to Worey. But be this 1t may, the De
murrer being TO the whole BILL lost its effect entire
w. A bill to remove cloud is ahead of equity By
itself Ii will lie, although tho defendants are IN
possession and complainants have the legal title and
might sue ut law for the recovery OF the property
that Iot being esteemed adequate IeheI. lerB'
| 5Z4. 10 do, 1888.
1t need not ask any discovery, or state any defect
of proof or the witnesses whose testimony Is relied
upou for the relief simple statement that the In
strument Is void or yodable, with the proper
prayer, Is suficient-StcryS Eq. Sec. 6s9-7O5d.
1t is not like a bill to perpetuate testimony since
the matter involved in it be made the subject
immediate judicial investigation and decree. lStoTyt
En- Sec 1870 Il And we are not aware. that, in thi
respect il differs from ordinary bill.
How the facts NAV turn out to be, upon an answer
we cannL& know. We think the facts stated IN TIL
bill and amendment require an aDswer and, there
, fore reverse the Chancellor's decree and remain
: the cause for that purpose WRIGHT
A true copy, Test c. W. NELSON, Clerk.