Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-01-28

% IoOSctVBED
There maybe are cases Of SHE owners Of property, WI
n labor under disability, and whose proper
d sell. PETITIONER tnot sui ur) jointly with Ode thong
n rot so CONVEX emily ayahly updsr the protection Of h
r eansg ne SSs GtRI 9asss 2 2 RG ss. T
shield aHdhis proca ana Hris suserTe his
Of proee1ne proper lands Of infants
s2 as either BY bill position BY the h section Of The c
chapter original jurisdiction
bin petition o. oserSis eSept rtitias ar nils for t paF
t;on orsaie Of real estate The Of c. Brown 81
Humph page 2O7 is where petition aled BY minor
BY his guardian, sell land which and
this was decided tn e competent under the Of lel Ma
question was male as 4 the proPrety Of proceeding by petition
eeiu that ii he poceeled at all THIS wascoEn1ed
law al he last term in the Of Hic8dR BTHS1g
house ms int was not alluded to 10 the sane Volume OF
llumnhi reports is the Of BlackOrs Shelby,
49, This decided petition filed IN the Circuit
Court Of Montgomery, by adult males. married joining
their husbands and minors by their guardians, and the proceed
the petition similar en-. lcter via the last srI tbour
the petition dismissed for causes and held
error to make such inder Of pars the proceeding by
petition not held to be void The moie Of proceeding by
petition seems u be pracs In North Carolina upnn statute
similar to ours (ec "a Dew and &t Eqr. g. matter o.
proceed By bill, conducted
ia equity Toe point presented in this heTetfore
To- have been directly made upon the aeto 2 We are Of oPn
ion however, that would going too far now, amer what has
area been shown declare processing By petition Uni,r
the act Of S9 void It Is not ho@e Intended to disturb the
decision Of The Court in Ddrds0a Balca and others 1t
mar m women and their husbands and miBorsOg r and that
The most proper mode Of proceeding under the act Of @
The second matter assigned as error that the married. wo
joined the petition We deem
this not only hut there is some doubt WterE Il would
not have they had not been 50 jone The subject
the separate wife had
eret anlgonistc that OF her husband See Sorys P
81 Such joinder accordance with the general practice
in this State.
On the third matter assigned error, upon the reasoning
already oered the authority Of the case OF Davdln vs.
Bow len others, referred We Of opinion that
the Joining of Helen M minor with the others was er-
he "a and sth matters assigned as error win considered
| together
According case Eaton Vs. Dekinsa it eompe
tent to look TO the proof upon blu Of review IL Is sufficient
il the decree consistent with itself and the padngs II IS in
sisted however, that should appear in the decree ITSELF that
satisfactory proof made that enough not rece give
ton and not (accoring to remark Of Judge Reese in TIE case
Of Normen Wilson, 18th HumPh 3II to be given any
lude Of construction. The OF Davidson BOwden and
others also referred to upon this point Consistently with
10th Of these the decree in this he supported The
II decree, the being satisfied Of the uth
Of said petition and that for the manifest advantage % the
heirs that said lands he solo, regard equivalent TO the
statement that appeared the facts stated, &c,
The statement that they appeared to The court or that the court
was satisfied, &c could not be made with truth tie Facts
appear,d otherwise than BY proof as their appearing IN
peng at all In the case q Davidson vs. boWen the ques
lien bill by the Purchasers while the original
still in the court and the proceedings still in fsri the
matters examined upon writ Of appeal what
cal ed the proof looked anieopared with the Decree
ordered sale without the any expression
any opinion properly partsne
IS
that pendently % and upon TIE general
requirements Of Court az Fguv The facts ur, which re
is founded should be it. aud that saad in this
decree. 1t will be observed that this decree passed. before the
adoption Chancery Rule O requiring the facts to be
decree Subsequently the adoption Of this rule
and upon rising tie shelton
revived, stated cause came
heard upon the peading and proof sc and the mater being
proper decree. that this
Sufficient statement Of within perhaps
nave held uat II was not suhciet before the rue II not
clear what the requirements this respect before the
we'll settled prcoein Tnnese Mr. Stony 10 his Equity
Peadings, iG7, e In England, DEGREES
ally drawn with special statement Of the
material grounds Of et watch support the dcree In the
courts Of the Unite Sa the DEGREES usually general with
any such statement OF faets.
Again says upon bill review, aking
upon face decree. you must
that the court erred IN point Law II therefore tie decree
do not contain statement Of the material facts which the De
crslceed it is plain that there tan be relief by bill Of
view, but only appeal 20 superior tribunal lie
Arnold, 18th Mason r. 1
ln America the decree does ordinarily bill,
ans pleading generally the upon which
cree founded" Upon the alop
tim Of 1880, recital Is sufficient Its
statements equivalent 10 estatemeGt appeared the
that the facts stated In petition are true and t-euDon the court
expressing opinion that the sale would proper proceeds
t1Ts i, Thai or8ion the decree in this ,s would rbg
have been good the decision this
point the existing state Of the law probably have
little effect teyOld the present
Upon ground enough has been already said to
this assignment is made from
the record the land in stewart resoJ,
lands in Weakey only mislescbei
scrption "a corrected by the report.
th Was it error that Helen NJ Winchester appeared mi
by her guardian such, vixen she in fact iot,
and guardian such.
ready said that she could not take advantage Of this upon bill
Of review for matter 1t is apparent the decree
appear all in the proceedings and therefore
be error apparent &c error az al Il Is error IN fact and
would he ground for original BILL either in the %
it he one, this demand a decision.
The 9Th ground Of is that some Of the lands not
Chaucery tins material Some o. the
that there should fes many bills rs tbfe
different districts ie Beside this has
decided in the Of Todd Cnnon tn Humph,
above referred And slc has as an informed BY breth
the practice o the court.
The 9Th cause igneI that the married
prvy examined in regard to their consent to their real
These derived by descent, and the
separate Of the There which
their seperate regard 10 their waiver Of equhe
&C. &c there known the where
the wife mas been so examined where u mss been sought 10 DIVERT
Of interest in land held jointly with her husband.
Since the pass OF the act Of lsU 4s authorizing the di
yestue OF substitute for conveyance the mode Of
conveyance by attachment has fallen altogether into de
perhps could have been brought to bear directly
against married woman She, under the old mode Of proceed
in, VIGOROUSLY by laying hus-
1i y ,, MI he s ac of - married woman bo1iI =
unwilling sold, and should therefore, by the 9th
in be made deenants could not her inter
est in the land dyed pryy examination 1t would
seem t or the statute would be wholly nugaory Sup
poe two be Tenants Of
Land which must be sold for or the other must lie com
painant demand against the other diyeutue Of IL
tie by when her only be parted with BY
privy examination Whether married woman should be priv
~ examined not cannot certainly end upon her accidental
position in complainant defendant, When bill is
MED Court Chanc= by hustandin ofhsef and
wife it is sometimes called the husband and the
y
however, as already remarked in where their interests
not autlousc joining only proper but necessary
Of intended dIvesture
title o. confidence In the
conuga relation not regard husband and vile occupy
ng att which Of law
aud the civil directly encourages
The osction the lands sufficiently Identified
and other proceedings which this Of objection il
,ted was thoroughly ohvate demurrer Tor might
have consideration See Todd Cannon, sh
was II error todect Of x - acres
If land lear semphs such decree would be void the
act Of Ie27 as il present interest embarrassed only ~ its
uscon claimants yet certainly such mode Of sale
would not favored upon appeal writ Of and would
rh he held erroneous We however, in by the
s.ut nrocsedinus that this teen severed
fr tbe other portions Of the land, whether valid preceding
or not inquire, it for the benefit Of
compsinau the OF il in its severed form reported ard
and two petitions ed recognizing such and
sale The parties aggreyed by IT, in fact nor do uy
now claim that they aggTieyed BY it. See 81 rvs Pi
4 Q. ..-.-,-.., $500
twin me uetion family insisted upon and indeed
mon LOOKING into the petition nothing ground upon
M good special den The pe
tion complies tbs respect with all OF the re4uisisns OK TIE
statute.
rne on t1at subject has application where title IS dYested
where the infants is directed OcOnvey This
was held in Eng long the time Of Lord HardWick
rho s m sheffield Duchess Of Buckingham already
srd 10 take Of the not 10 give day
. conveyance either in form in substance
Tbe affection hat il we'll bunde would seriously az
st he whole proceeding that the present c1plainans
we're uo made parties petition il Is aimt ior te Ot
nnt mat the petition signed by her guardians stating
mai he had signed we'll for himself a. Tor her 4nd " Is ao uot
e Though vyasvely admitted BY the married women tat y
was signed y Now the petition sets out your Peutones
this would seem 20 enhriee the nIried