Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-13

K
/ Wn Ross vs. Toaay aad kinney e-
This Is an apps4l fso ae Chzhesry Court Al Grssas
ii ls dism;ssiDg his bill The object Of he b:Il Il
70 we clouds from bis title TO q tract u lan1
1f 260 acres in the popsession Of d-feEdank YoanR
] sld sold for 0tber purposes J0an Veins sod MS
lana 70 Yong in 1913 vita some personal 1spqrly,
or sands Z, 00O doIlars and soon a. er paid ths
purchase money bst 800 dslIsFs, for Whieh he exc
ca ed his note, and look q titIe ~ deed This note
fss a-sigaet 20 eOnp plsiBa- II 0ktailsa judg-
eot upon It in July 1851. snd had the iaad levied
| aPoe aHd sold aud be became the purchaser, and
q 8 tes sheriff deed This Is hisriIls. he claims
Rat ms debt vas . lien upen tie lad Thfs isnot
80, where del is made no heu FOR tae ecnsiaera
ION passes 10 the endorses. Green aHd ofksrs -
dunlap and others 10 Han. 81. - -
Iae title derived from Veins was dsfsaisa a.
lo45, By the sale % the land under a iudrmaat
againtt Veins, By which il YES boGsd 8adsr shis
sale Il was Psrcha ed b r. J. Mckinney. and bT
nfm afterwards sold and c5rvsyed to Ysunr.@ Fsp
the e2nstderstion agreed 70 ke paid 10 MeKlsnsV
James kinny became his sueiy IN note datsd
SsptemDer Ss-so4y. ne ane o. The trade, and dus
Septe8ber kst 1851. deed of trasl was xites b.
Young upon this tract Of land 70 seoirs shs aid
James kinny. .Under that deed Of Irust he lnud
was sold in September. 1852 and boaghs bg Veins
from EhOm il vas redeemed By Yong. o. Aaeass.
1854, so title was again vested IN said Yousk a
the date Of eOmplAiaABts judg gmsHt. levy aad sale.
in lSals il will De seea that HE large dsbi sscnrsj.
y By the deed Of tTast 70 Kinny ia 1899 Wss All "a
paid Ia 1916 Young made dsed OF trust up6n
ths same land sppo ming Moses Brown trustee 10
secure spndry eredieOFs Aaf if apPeats b iksF
ansWeref 1Oang 20 the iaierrogat0iiss 4 shs bal
hat there we're uPEsrds st sO05 dollars Of tAoss
debts due at The tine TIE complainant bsueht ,ks
land under his eEesuiiOu. But i IS insisted that
This deed void bsoause IN lditiou % TIE olksr
0bieetions some Of the personal propsrty inuluie4
n Il, was c1nsuued in the use. UPoa sxAminA-
tion Of the deed think this Objection caRnOt BE-
maintained IA arfict Ia ,rkfah
applied are. ''tsn head Of young catlls, tEsntys
head Of hegs, thirlesn oli sheep, ana six lanbs
tEO bee palaces, tWO vlnegw kegs" eons II tkis
property Is necessarily e0asumabls in the sss and
that is the test. Il is susee Ptiole OF being uss4
without consumption But It is Ennecssssfy to ii 8
Tsstgats the Vsliuify OF abe desl bscaass isase
question to the exstenos o. tie dss of r1,st +
TO Kinny Of 1919, aud thar uqsatisfsa a. the aals
Of the oomplsinsnt's levy and Pdrehass. Tkiswal
raise the auesiioa on shfca tue ca mn men n,
effsctusllys as if both deeds gnqusstioaabIsI
II the case STATED in the bill, thaf L. thai tss
debts secured in both these deeds Of trust hsd bsen
paid eff. or that the deeds were beth hasdusat.
then the complainant would hsTe case for 8iBcrs-
siOn and perhaps for relief But ace riding 10 tt
case made out &C the tine be made his lew s,d pnr
chase there was no title in his dsbtor-hs hada
bare equity Of redemption. The legal tile vas in
the trustees There vas certainly no titlein Foanr
subject to levy and sale. No right thea PASSED t.
the purchaser. Before party eau 8 ard ia aesuFt
he must show that he has good lille himself Il
this case the complainant has title st all bt only
the appearance Of it, there was no legal interest
in Young, his debtor, at The Hme Of his lexy and
sale, subject to execution A. lAs- he might have
ded bill sfter OblaiRisg his judgment At laE to
have forced the foreslOsure Of The nsoitea9s and
reached the ovsrpla the satisfstion Of bis dsht
But this he did not attempt 70 %, but proceeded
upon the ground thai the mortgages we're void, or
had been discharged By the payment % tks debts
they were made 70 secure. II he bad succseded in
bis he would have a good case, bat, ss we have
seen. he has fsiisd b1th grounds, and therefore
he has no grounds TO stand upen in equity. Aaoth.
ar position assumed in the argument Il, tiat as
Young becsme Invested Hith the title afsr ths rust
sale by the trustee, Kinny ia 1858, that the sans
should iaare TO him, sud make psrfset the tiis ob-
tained by bin under his execution sale ef 1851
This is not for the application Of hat dee
Lrine- He Wes a purchaser under the maxim q
loren teEptOr aud had no warranty or othsr sbllsa
ion nPon Young for title. lie obtained ncihine By
his purehase 20 which any thing could aasek 81
or OtherWisa. Fhe5e il no prinofple cf
quity 10 aid hin in his dilemms. Whsfhsr ks 3
night not, BY proceeding unier our resent sfsiuta
70 that subject, have the satisfaction Of bis sxsou-
ion aside, and thea proceed against this lsad o.
ny other property OF Young is ano.her ausstion
nd ons with Waieh We have Rothing 70 DO undsr
his bill Hs.I
II seems that a small tract Of lend vas inelndsd
n the levy and sale which is not embraced in he
eeds Of trust and was, perhaps, uEsneunbsrtL
Is 10 that he nay have Oblslnsd q COED tisis, ss
east, thstis not affected By this proceeding. asef
The decree Of the ehaacsllsr dismissing ihs In
Till be affirmed. CARUTHKas
A true copy. Attest c. ". Nr1sOs, el,rE. sll