Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-19
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF The supreme Court OF the
state OF Tennessee, at JaeksOns April
Term, 1882

Opinions of the Supreme Court OF the
state OF Tennessee, at JacksOns April
Term, 1889.
George NJ Birlgoug vs. John c. Birdsong, ct al.
The complainant and defendant, John c., are
brothers and the latter is the administrator upon
the estate of William BirdsOng, ST., who their
father, and who died. ntestate the 10th Of October
1850
This bill was fled on the 81 of April, 1854, for
the purpose of setting aside a conveyance of the
share Of complainant in the estate Of his father made
TO the defendant, John c., the I'd day of NOvem-
ber 1850 and to obtain account and decree against
he administrator and heirs for compliments share
IN the estate IN favor of his wife and children. Let
tiers of administration granted to the defend
ant John c., on the lSt Monday in November, 1850
a few days after the date Of said conveyance.
This conveyance is evidenced by deed absolute
upon its face for the complainant Of all his share
and interest real and personal in his fathers estate
andsche pLrpOrts be for the consideration Of
$1,000 Il appears that John Q. executed to COM
plainant his five notes for the sum Of S206 each,
due the 18th Of December, 1851 1852, 1858, 1915
and 1855, which have never been paid; and in his
answer. he insists that this the only cOnsdera-
ton for said conveyance and all he ever to pay
complainant for his share III said estate and that
he is absolutely entitled to the same fund of trusts
of every kind and he AYERS that his purchase of
this interest was in al respects, fair and free Of
fraud.
This deed was attested by T. R. Richardson and
II. a. WEIGH, and proved by them and Immediately
registered
1t is charged in the bill that Immediately after the
death of their father, the said John c. proposed to
complainant to make him a transfer of all his in
terest in his fathers estate. ana with view as lie
said to enable him. the said John, to hold it and take
of it for the benefit of cOmplanants wife and
children representing to complainant, that it would
be wasted. in his, compliments, hands. and would
do his family no good; and that conscious Of his
weakness. anxious to provide for his family, and
cOniding in the honor of his brother and believing
that he would actin good faith towards him. and then
he agreed to the proposition; and executed the
veyance afOresaid-nOt knowing, and being incable
of knowing-that it was to have the effect Of trans
ferring his whole interest away from his wife and
family, or that it would be used for that purpose.
This allegation, before stated is denied in the
answer; but the defendant in this connection states
that he may have said that complainant would want
the $1,000 AMI that he desiredO secure that for COM
painants wife and children, that this was his de-
sire and he UppOses he said So but again denies that
he proposed securing the interest in the cstdte and
admits that complainant was wasJeful and intempeF
at times, and poor but insists he knew his rights
The allegations in the bill sustained by the de-
position of NJ. q. BirdsOng, daughter Of the COM
painant She proves that John c. BirdsOng came
to her father house on the same evening that the
notes were executed. and said he intended we
(meanng thereby no doubt, the family Of complain
anti should have our part of the estate. when it
was wound up; that it was a trade made not to
stand that he intended to buy them some land and
place them upon it; and said who could cheat the
children out OF cent? And thereasOn he gave for
doing this was because he did not want his fathers
estate scattered about and that if it was not for him.
it would soon be gone. As to the notes, he told !
complainant not to dispose Of them, but that he |
wanted him to keep them until the estate wound
up, and he would lift the notes. and place his part
of the estate back to him, that the notes were not
worth one half one third his part Of the estate
and that he intended to that oOmplainants tami
ly should have their part Of the estate.
She at the time was very young but her story is ]
consistent and natural one; and she is strongly cor
roborated by most Of the important facts in the |
case, and by the deposition Of i. +. Bond John G. |
Price, William Knight and others.
The defendant repeatedly SAID, for many years,
prior to his fathers death, that the complainant
a drunken fool, and that it would be wrong for i
father to give him any part Of his estate; that he
would drink it up soon as he could swallow t, |
and it would go out Of the family.
Complainant Is shown. when at himself, to have |
but ordinary capacity and when drinking to be IN
capable of business, and easily Overreached at all
times The defendant spoke Of him as a wretch, and
that he would as soon rob grave as to cheat him,
sc. The proof shows him to have been poor de-
graded and destitute The estate of the intes tate
consisted Of some 80 slaves, land and other proper
", to say nothing Of advancements
As TO its value the answer Of defendant admits,
hat at the Intestates death, it worth from SI2
100 to Sl3000 and the proof more than sUstans 1t;
hus making compliments share, which was one
fifth of the value at least of $4,000 which defendant
assumes he purchased foriSl co., at one to fyeyears
ime-less than a third Of its value
To countervail this proof and much else of a like
character to be found in this record, defendant
proves efforts, by complainant, to sell to others,
before he bought and that it is probable If he had
lot taken it others would; that he not intoxi-
ated on the day the deed eXecuted.-thOush It
ppedrs that he was just out Of debauch and
and WEIGH, the attestIng witnesses, one
# whom drew the deed. and Mr., GregOr, ut whose
louise it was drawn. are examined; and the sum
md substance of their proof is that though they
i'd not hear INSTRUMENTATION which proceeded and
ed to the trade yet the deed was executed in their
resence and by them attes5ed; that it was read 10
complainant who was sober and knew what he was
bout, and they regarded it as fair trade and that
lie stated he thought the 81 900 a fair compensation
or his share IN his fathers estate, considering his
ltuatIon; and the best he could do for himself and
lmIly and that when not drunk he was capable Of /
usncss and 1t IS further shown that for some time
forwards he recognized the validity Of the ar
and expressed himself satisfied with it
nd that defendant would DO right with him; and
controversy with Price. as to the notes he nOt-
ed defendant not to pay them to Price {
The Chancellor decreed for the defendant We Go
ct concur in this degree.
It is true that mere inadequaoy of price indepen-
ent of other circumstances where the parties stand
n equal ground, and deal with each other without
ny imposition opposition, will not set aside a ! /
ale Inadequacy, of itself is only badge of fraud
And it is clear that If advantage be taken on either
de Of the ignorance distress Of the other it az
lrds new and distinct ground ana a very great ?
ladequacy may form presumption of oppression.
In equity conveyance viii be set aside when it
obtained by undue influence over a person greatly