Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-19

Opinions of the Supreme Court Of the STATE
of Tennessee, at Nashville. December
Term, 1858.

Il
loves Ex al McLsmore and Williams vs. MeLsmors
On the Ist Of SEPTEMBER, I37 John C. cIoe executed 70
William A. Gwnn adeel Of trust the undivided oieiy
Of Of laud entered ic The Charles J. Love-
situated IN the cOunty Of Dyer and State Of Tennessee
and the deed Of trust Fecited that the other nOity belonged
On the ion Of November Is3 this Seea Of trust vas regis
cure Erescisfipg debts, due from McLspore Gwinn.
On ne 29th November, ls47, GEnn assigned cozpIAa
ant william williams the claim he held upon McLemore
with the trust % secure its payment.
poyd by Charles and McLemore that purpose and
BY Of this Court rendered the sh Of February, 1916
Love- the executor OF Charles J. Love- and also
against said McsmoTe the sa@ Of ssOs 60 with interest from
ongsad tracts Of land, and for other small amounts
against them third OF the that suit the whole
OF watch Charles D. Loves executor paid McLemoe being
II frr appears that Samuel T. Love- as the executor Of
Charles Love- the 4h Of March, 49, Ohaineia decree in
The Chancery Court at Franklin against John C. Mcemnre for
upon which executions have been and returned
MsIenore and Charles had partners the pu
chase and location Of land Warrants and the last recovery grew
Of matters pertaining to the partnership
The due Charles J. Loves estate By McLem0re,
count these two eeoyere on the ed Of May 1856 was So
113 q, and the remains unpaid
enn CharesJ Love had been partners in the manule
ure Of iron; and the latter having died in july 1857 bill Vs
filed on the s o. September OF that year. BY Samuel T. Loves
inc executor Of Charles - Love- AGAINST Ssinn Tor settlement
had 10 hsfavor against him for $50 and this also remains
Charles j. Love, in his lifetime had made eoresGnf with
Melemors 70 eoHceg ti the ne undivided half o. the 100
and had also made him transfer CT the uniEd half
NJ unnn coD az ayrsa1
between them that the grants should issue in Loves
The grants did, aeeonsly issue Charles j. Love- ard the
Ll title to said lands stand 10 the heirs and deves said
Charles j. Love.
tracts Of land aforesaid BELONGED to the partnership lands Of Nc
Lemore and ChsrlsJ Love.
Of Charles Love, together with his heirs and deye ad
PHI against Meemor seeking to his interest IN the said
ractE If
decree and also 70 the decree d the 9Th Of March, 1913 charging
that they hai len upon his interest in said lands
On the 18th day Of April, ls9, william Williams fled his
bill ans Charles Loves and heirs and devsees,
and also against and GEinn upon the oragei de
assigned to him by DEMONSTRATING priority out Of said MeLe
aores nteres. in said lands ami askag for Injunction
against Charles Loves executor heirs deyes and that
the legal title Of half Of said lands be Invested out Of them,
and sold to pay his debt.
heirs devisees of Charles Love
that before they shall be compelled psrt with the legal e
said @cLemores moey Of said lands the debt due them from
him. as well as the debt due from GHinn, must De paid
And the question is whether their rights and equities not
superior to the equity Of Williams
We think il necessary might fairly be de1ueed from
this recordthat the whole Indebtedness sf MeLemore
parnerhp IN land warrants and lands 81 which thee two
tracts part II Charles J. Love at his eshor the
against McLtmore which fastened Itself upon bis interest in s
lands and OF which could lot be deprived by Meemore
50 as to McLemores half Of that part Of the
decree in favor Of voolfolk which given compensation
Hum 49, Gee vs. Gee, 2 sneed, 39j.
And it make difference Loves death amount
between them had
and that the claim Of the locator existed in the form Of
joint Ebay which satisfied by the heirs and repre-
sentaiYes Of CharlesJ. Love until long Afterwards.
They nevertheless arose from transactions occurring in the e
time CT Love, and the equity existed at that time.
But that Indebtedness Charles J.
Love by McLeore and his liability for him Jones Wood
folk arose from independent transactions uneouneei With these
lands with partnership he could not have forced him
eo7veyanceO Of hhf of these lands paying his indebtedness
him, and freeing him from liability for him.
And the same rights precisely, exist in favor Of the executor
and heirs and deyseeso Of Charles Love They have the legal
tile to these lands ard forced part with
debt due from Mcl.emore is paid
And the rule applies GEinn II he has filed the bill
he could net compel sale the executor heirs and deviscss Of
Love- who had the Legal title until he would do equity, By pay
ng net only The debt due from Mcmore but also the debt due
from hime to Loves estae which has the
decree Aforesaid
The transactions Charles J. Love and Gwinn also oe
currei previous to July, 1881 the time Of the death
former or the debt arose from transactions occurring prior
that tine
GEinn mortgage eueuSere with the
equity e sng against MeLemore, and his became
subjected additional equity against him. his in
debtedness Loves estate equity Of the ests being AZ
least equal to that Of McLemore GWnn and the executor
heirs and devsees Of Love- having legal title in these lands
must Court Chancery prevail Turner vs. Peyrr -
a. Hun 49, 40 Sweat ct al Henson, Hum, a. So
10 Ysrg IUj.
Williams in this case IN no better situation than vinp and
Gwinn IN no better condition than MeLemore There is no rule
n equity nan TINS that the purchaser Of equitable title
always abide by teease Of the person from whom buys Craig
vs. Leiper ct al Merger 100. -
The questions involved in this were decided by The
Ter ct al.
NJ. c. Napier equity entitled to certain lands which
sold these ladd With others E. Napier upon time, bound
himself to make title He made assignment for the benefit
OF his creditors, by which Johnston, trustee became entitled
me debt Tor the purchase money OF the land due from E. N
Napier
When Thompson vas called on by NJ c. Napisr or Johnston
ms trustee to convey 50 that the the title to n Napier might
Be completed, unless NJ Napier indemnify for his liza.
5s as surety and endorser and also pay him debt due from
The Court decided he could compelled to convey unless
Unidentified andhis debt paid
correct copy J. P CLARK, Clerk