Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-11-23

Opinions of the Su preme COErt of the St7te
of Tennessee. al Jackson, ApriI Term,
1860.
Charlotte O. Bayess by her next rsndvs George u
and John Y. Bayleas
On the 18th july 1880, John Y. Bayless the nus
band of complainant made exchange of slaves
with one John P. King in the State of Georgia.
King, by the direction of Bayless, by deed Of that
date conveyed the slaves, Jack, Tidy, Lucy and Peg
CIV TO the said Bayess in trustoT the separate of
complainant The deed was registered according to
the laws of Georgia. about the lst of January 1884,
in Columbia county. Georgia, where the parties then
resided Bayless and his wife, soon after that re-
moved to Tennessee with said slaves. On the 4th
Nav 1885, Bayless sold three of SAID slaves Jack.
Tidy and Peggy to George II. Ecan, who has died
since the commencement of tlis suit and the same
has been revived against his administrator. Under
this sale the slaves went into the possession of Eean
and were claimed and used as his own from that
time to the fling of the bill in 1852. He sold
some of the slaves to others in the meantime !;
and no doubt seemed 10 have existed to the title
either by himself others. The complainant, with
full knowledge of the sale, made no question or
complaint until the filing of the bill. But there is
no evidence that she in any way advised encouraged,
participated in the sale. Her husband was IN
thrifty and now in her old age and restitution, filed
this bill for the recovery OF her legal rights. She
es copy of the deed TO King as recorded in Geor-
gia; and also the original proved IN common law
form. Her claim is resisted upon the following
questions:
l. That the deed was not proved and recorded as
required by the laws of Georgia, and the statutes
and decisions of that State introduced We
think this position is untenable But If 1t were not
the production and proof of the original would sup
ply the defect. There is no provision in our regis
tration laws, requiring that such papers coming
from another State shall be registered here to give
them validity against purchasers or creditors
2. That the slaves given in exchange for those
in controversy, belonged to the husband, and
no tuaS ms defeat
creditors, as he was then much involved. II Is
sufficient answer to this objection, to say that no
creditor is here complaining, and that It is entirely
immaterial upon what consideration the equitable
title was vested in the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES by the
husband, by way of settlement, or by King under
his procurement. 1t would be good in any event,
except against creditors. So valid title was vested
by the deed in the complainant, and the husband
DOLLY held the naked legal title for her benefit 1t IS
true that it is hard case defendant as it seems,
from what appears TO US, that fair consideration
paid by defendant and that there was no actual
notice of the defects in Che title But STILL the vend-
or lad no right, and could convey none. The pIr-
chaser should hgve been more cautious than to buy
from stranger without investigating his title. TIE
maxim cdUedt enpt0r applies in such case. His mis-
fortUnes cannot add any strength to the title purchas
e. nor defeat that of complainant The question is
who has the best right according to the rules of law
applicable to the facts of the case
g. The statute of limitation is relied upon as a de-
fence The defendant held and claimed the slaves
under his purchase for seventeen years before this
suit was instituted. This would give him
perfect title, and bar the complainant, unless
she is embraced by the savings in the statute. She
has been all the time, and is yet under the disabi
ty of coverture But it is insisted that the trustee
her husband. in whom the legal title was vested,
was bound 10 sue in the prescribed time, or he would
be barred and that when the trustee is barred. so
is the cestd qHi truSt, without regard to disability
This is certainly true in cases to which the princ
nile Rut Is 4 n
piled in Williams Oty, Hump. 500. That was
case where the trustee having the right and power
to sue wrong doer, who contrOverted the proper
ty, failed TO do In HerrOnVs Marshall, Hunph.
443. the same principle is announced but, the
Court then excerpts from! its operation,
case. where the trustee, for any legal cause lis
incapable of sueing is under disability at the
time the cause Of action occurred. In that case
the Court says, that 1.-THE trustee is not capable be-
cause estOpped by his SALE and the ceStui qlli
tqst Is not bound to sue, until his disability is
moved In the case before u.s. the treestee could
not sue, because he would be estOpped by his own
bill Of sale; and consequently the compliments
right was saved until his disability is removed.
Therefore the statute of limitations is not in the
way Of the assertion of compliments right.
1t Is said that she aware of the sale, and the
invasion of her rights and should have asserted
sooner. That may all be true. But still as we have
seen, time does not operate against her claim, and
the delay cannot in law affect her She may choose
her own time to during her disability, or wait
until it is removed. We think, therefore that the
decree in her favor was right. The defendant is
made 10 account for the value Of the slaves convert
ed with interest, and to pay hire, and 10 deliver
those still in possession. But as the title Of Elcan
whether good bad to those remaining in his pos
session at the time OF his DEATH passed by law to
his heirs, they should be made parties. True,
hold that his title not good against complain
ant but such he had descended to his heirs, and
they have right to be heard before it is Invested.
for this purpose the cause will be remanded and
The heirs Of Elcan made parties before final decree
This is necessary for the purpose of closing and
making final and conclusive the litigation, for, other
wise, as they would not be bound By the decree as
they are not before the Court they would have
right to reopen the cOntroy ersy
decree will be entered in conformity to this
opinion and the cause remanded.
On account of the great delay of complainant in
asserting her rights and the absence of all fraud on
the part Of the defendant she will pay all the costs
here and below, er, rather, they will be reserved
out of the fund decreed to her for hire or other
wise CARUTHERs
Test NJ D. WEIGH, Clerk