Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-04
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF the Supreme Court of the State
of Tennessee, delivered at Nashville, at
December Term, 1858.


Martha A. cardEell vs.. P R. Chea;ham, AMI Others.
On The lst of March, 1852, James W. Cardwell,
the husband of Complainant, made a conveyance,
by sdaei in fee simple, TO the defendant, Felix 4.
Cheatham, of a lot in the city Of Nashville.
The detd urOn its face, was in trust, that said
Cheatham should ho.d the legal tide Of the LOT for
the sole and separate use and benefit Of complain
ant The same MOI to be liable to the CONTROL or fer
any debt, responsibilities TO be contracted, or in
CURED by the said jams W. CaYdwell, and ii At the
said Chesthsm should permit her to use, occupy
rent out improve the She mi ht think proper
and at her request in writing, TO sell and convey
the same, and 10 reinvest the proceeds, she, N
writing might direct and that the property acqui>
red by the re investment should Re held, by the
trustee, in Ike manner as the original estate; and
the said trustee should be responsible for fraud or
gross neglect OF duty only aud not for any misman-
agement Of the complainant in the premises.
On the 18th Of November in the same year. the
said Chestbam, in lis character Of trustee sfguCd
and executed deed of conveyance 10 fec simple
of said lot to he defendant A Davis for the con-
siderstion Of $4,000, as stated in the deed, which
is therein admitted to have beea received by said
Cheatkam.
At the foot Of the deed to Davis, and upon the
same paper, the complainant executed the following
writing: alt is my desire and request that I. r.
Cheatham trustee, has made and executed the above
deed and hereby rstify and confirm it in every
respect; and hereby warrant and defend the lite
to the said lot speci6 in the above deed sganss
the right, ttle interes, claim Of all and every
person or persons whatsoever. In witness whereof,
have hereunto set my hand and SEAL this the l7Ih
Tesr MARTHA A. CALDWELL, Seal.
JOHN CoLTARr,
IL. G BENNETT"
Complsirants husband has since departed this
life, and she now brings this bill against defendants,
Cheathsm, Davis and johnson to recover this lot.
19h sh. 4 of hp~b Y-
band, in violation of the express terms Of the con-
ditions Of said deed OF trust, and in fraud of her
rights, sold said lot to the defendant, Davis, for
$4,000, and received the pay, and that the said
Davis and Cheatbam fraudulently combined with
said James W. Cardwell to deprive her Of the bene
fit of said deed-snd that said Cheatham executed
deed to the said lot to defendant Davis, he, at the
time, well knowing the condition Of her title, and
permitted said james W. 10 use and consume the
proceeds thereof and failed to renvest the same
directed in said deed.
She also alleges that she was forced to sign the
writing at the foot of the deed and did SO in guor>
ance of her rights.
The defendants, Davis and Chesiham, in their
answers deny the charges Of fraud and coercion, in
detail; and Davis that the tile was made in
accordance with the terms Of the trust deed, and
that compliments rights were fully protected by
her trustee.
He admits, however, that the trade for the lot
made with compliments husband
The defendant Cheatham states in his answer,
that his used as trustee in the deed with
out his knowledge assent that he has no recolleo
ton of ever seeing il, until he saw il as exhibit
in comp ainaut's bill. He however admits his sig
nature TO the deed TO Davis, but has recoec ion
of ever executing it, and is certain he never saw
complainant to know her, and never receiVed one
dollar CT the consideration reoited in tbe deed.
He supposes tina, compliments husband, for his
own purposes used his name in the first deed, with
! 4 81. L. i
| the deed TO Davis wi his Wife's authority ap-
peuded and requested him TO execute H. Stair e,
doubtless that it al night, and that it was
| mere matter Of form-the legal title having been
conveyed to him, and that he signed his name ac-
cordingly. Thai "his whole and sole agency in The
| business was the execution Of the deed to Davis
1 when il Was brought TO him, with complainant
writer authority appended
| He states further, that, he has no daubt, COM
painans husband resorted TO the plan of conveying
the lot in trust FIR mis- wife, TO protect it from his
creditors, and with such provisions as enabled HIM
readily to dispose Of it, whenever fit opportunity
| presented itself.
Cheaiham was the Clerk Of the County Court, and
the deed Of trust was du y acknowledged by JAIME
W. Cardwell, before his deputy, upon the day of It's
date and duly registered the next day
| No proof was taken in the cause The Cbancel
| lor in his decree, denied complainant any relic
and dismissed her bill 10 this, we think he erred
| We do not place our objection TO the decree upon
any want of formaliiy in the execution of The pow
er 1t may be conceded, that the wifs's request
was sufioi Mt, and that it was given simultaneously
with the deed, and a part of it; and that if i
were not for other difficulties in the way, vail
title would have passed.
Il may also be true that if Davis in his transaction
had occupied the position OF bona fds purchaser
| Without notice Of breach Of the rust rerosed il
Chea han, he would not have been bound 10 see Il
the application of the purchase money, by It's rein
H. f4rt he -. i
4 amt. w. and 7 Leading Eq cases in notes to Ell
i'iOtets ssssrfynsh 1857, s7s77. Woruhy We. wtrn
n " 8RheSk k2lsai saToH SIS uoiisEisiaI.hs l-oa
i Ramsy esResde ,saa wade, tn No 0hsatbasnis fre,