Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-18

Opinions OF the supreme Csurt OF the state
OF Tennessee, AZ Nashville, December
Term, 1895.



The BIZ seeks to subject lot Nashville sold and conveyed
by The complainant defendant Moses Singleton, on he sth
e This relief attempted resisted round q want
Of title the complainant. The Eets brry fellows
with otherreai estate EWing Thos r. Jennng
in daughi, Caroline sitter, ih@n infant. To
M marriage ree from eoatroI her husband Of ali
LIABILITY Tor hsdests or eol And IN ne event o. ne death
or children Of such issue in further ast to hold SAID property
FOR their use until the youngest ed Of the said Caroline should
arrive At tsas Of twsuty.one and then convey
ren Or Of such children, in such proportions the
law would eye case Of nstacy There are other mtzons
over n certain events and other declared which need
not BE noticed present pnroe, Said Ewing and Jen
nBg we're likewise ngminated executors Of the viii, but they
dcfnei 10 quay and the which the will
ed for pr at, they cared in Court and formally EenOnncsi
eNecutorsh frec9i Ard tereuPon, Henry agan
appointed administrator, with TIE will annexed OF said
1p 1872 the administrator sed atiH in Chaucery set.
ting forth The personal estate Of the tetatoE ns0Tsnt
and had reported Q the County Court and praying ale
debts and 70 administered pursuant to the statute
applicable to nsoyeu estates The bill set forth the other pro-
visions Of the will and alleged That Ewing apd Jennings refused
accept trust aud asked that trustee be appointed By
the Court their stead To th bill certain Of the eslos
were made By name The nominated trustees Ewing and
Jennngs likewise made parties Bat The infant benei
answered the blJ 1i therein entirely renowned The a
trusts declared in favor of he teiSators daughter
~ - rs of tse dents reasrts iIe Nv re Ns.tes
under Nheh controversy this cause sod By
Master, the ls OF Iy. lss9 Bat the purchaser ng
neG Of his purchase complainant This vas re-
ported the Master, and approved y the Chaneeor, and
copsna1t IN pursuance % hich deed Of conveyance was
him BY the Master he ss Of January, is4I
And under this conveyance, the held possession %
the lot adversely ali persons until bis conveyance Il de-
fndant in ls since Waen The possession Las been eonttnnd in
the itter In Ike manner Pror 70 te year Af NE teslaors
daughter, Caroline, nteTnarried VITA Gilbert isgan and In
December q g@5 y, S,S s bs and and n, I
marriage with him. well as certain credit Is and egaes
made parties; the object % which vas 70 have fall and
fnal adjustment Of her rights under me VII ad % have ne
trusts, declared therein, executed In eur view or The
Mn or ne proe ngs that we've lai In the cause farther an
state, that, her b she neither aratvely sanctions
spect although all the proceedings ccuntiay detailed
And amongst otter ihs, ale remuneration u the trust b. E
ing and Jennings stated and the COsr is called APP
point in their steal. 70 earyi out tie trusts Of the
will and in aecoriancs with this PRAYER Ct ne o BY al order
the mi 1po1 The trus,ees heren nominated The present b
was fled ist Of Nav SIS Gilbert iagan vie Fnery
Caroline sitter aud the children Of the marriage the esfus
gus frust under the will, not made parties.
Upon foregoing facts, the question be determined
whether the defendant invested with valid and iEdeas
bic title the lot In question, against Mrs. aaa and her
chdren9 For although the title have been defective
ding the bill Jet in the absence Of fraud on The part Of
vendor in making the sale II the e be ay perfected at
Of the dnal decree, me purchaser viii be compelled
accept it. For the complainant il Is insisted that admitting the
have been void the title Of me defendant IS absolutely
perfect and beyond the reach Of meaehmtnt by operation OF
the statute limitations, upon the established principle the
legal estate being vested N trustee whose right Of action is
forever barred s csfs QUe trust, though under disability
ouI that the conveyance Of the legal tate in he lot
to the compartments er the disclaimer Of the By Ewing
merely the legal title the likewise, BY pliea
tior him trustees ald that standing in this
t ssh he cannot d'n'a' A'' ns '' SCI up an adverse
This reasoning not sound The trust did not nor could it.
pass to III, complainant with lis purchase lot The trust
800 a. as Me inssp1rabIe tbeefron. as ne isrt
assss but nav rain in trustee or elseuhere. wholly IN
by unauthorzed sale Of the property, the subject there
the creation and the consequences of
lion by the pers minated as trustees It seems, in general
that every g By deed or via or Otherwise IS supposed primal
fcie the to Be beneficial doEe
consequently the law presunes until there proof the contra
pressed to be given l Trustees led 1855 top But
betber made IN trust or Otherwise, and heref Re it IS ct
FOR the person trustee 70 refuse estate ana tie
sf Of ha right. If3I2 gift not perfect u6i raii6ed
BY e assent the donor and disclaimer The operates
some T Ttrs are anfh,ritiss ubicb s-sn - ,,,.I
paroI disclaimer t either BY deed, viii freehold e.
tate, sufficient. But, however this e. settled,
nat The may be by deed by matter Of re az
such disclaimer or refusal 10 accept the trust weever
viii relate back be held to have bern made time Of the
gift il no act done prec e the party 33 The
effect proper refusal disclaimer of that
all parties placed precisely IN the sme situation relatively
to The trust property the dscamng party had not bea
named trust instrument whether be deed III
BE Hence in such case s1Ie trustee or ali the trustees
discam trust the legal estate will heir
Of the dsvOr ID From these principles it follows that the k
gal estate never vested IN Eslns ana Jennings my having pr
eriy enounceI the estate and Office OF ard ens
ueay descended the heir low the testaor E vas
heeeEi gre trust until upon her o" application il was vest
ed in tson decree OF Court Of competent Jurisdiction
nd hy
the might not be possible 70 hold, that
Of limitations before the appointment OF Lou
November, The ees Of the disclaimer trustees
being legal the cf gre by opera
law, the instant the will took effect
unite both legal and equit die estates,
eecting technical merger the estate in the former
the peculiar circumstances ID 3j4 it Is difficult pr
ceiye statute could have operation against
remained under the disability infancy
ceased-wf ether before the appointment
Buthlwevsr this nay De- think sufficient,
for determination Of The case in hand that Ltton, he
appointed the Court forever against
By the deCe Of the Court, the legal him
exclusively, and the trust continuing trust, Until the
youngest child Of Caroline should arrive at
his appointment, the statute unquesonably began
the property the defendants has
ndefeashe the express % the s9 against
the and ully against the cesis que trust We
assumed for the purpose Of tins decsion that
nant, under the decree, void, against the infant
ces que trust the ground that she not party Of the
suit but not thought necessary to discuss the question il
cOnee6ed that By the decree houh void, The purchaser
clothed with such apparent legal e brought him within
protection ~ the Of the act Of Rig As trs
IIagan her children before the cannnt
in FORM make binding against them but do So
effect the determination the question presented BY the
cord, necessarily the determination Of their rights and
the validity Of their title. See woodbridge Planters Bank
Sneed principle the Of Cunningham sharp
umph le1 49, IT. purchaser viii not be compelled to
accept title, possa0ry right Of the legal owner % the
land be merely barred by operation Of the second section Of ne
1919 apply this Here the rights Of all
claimants OF and their title absolutely eNn-
guishef By force OF the first section Of the act
The decree will he ahrmsd MCKINNEY.
correct copy, J. p. CLARK, Clerk.
Manny's combined Reaper and
Hover.