Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-02-05
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
OFFICIAL.


Opinions of the supreme Court of the
state of Tennessee, al Knoxville Septem-
Der Terms 1852
VIM Mccoy aid others vs. Vim. Peace Girard and others
We think the Chancellor's decree is correct By
the sale of this land under execution, George Click
the purchaser became invested with the equitable
title subject to John Muncher'S rights Of redemp-
ton for two years This title, he the 9th Of Dc
ober 1896 three days prior TO the expiration of the
time for redemption with the assent and direction Of
John Muncher, assigned and Telinquished to Polly
Ann Pearce the wife of ThOs. w. Pearce and daugh-
ter OF said Muncher. The said Polly Ann borrowed
the money and paid Click his bid add her husband
refunded the same and there is no evidence that
John Muncher ever refunded OF paid ThOs. W.
Pearce the sum so advanced; but he permitted the
time 10 redeem to expire and made no effort, so TAR
as we can see to redeem this estate of his daugh
fer And we are satisfied when he caused her to be
invested with it. il was not meant expected that
he should do so but that on the contrary, he IN
tended it as an advancement to her. The sum paid
Click was about $50 and the land was worth about
$780, and he intended that she should become the
owner of the tract and that the Sheriff should make
her deed, he yielding his right to redeem. Such
we think was the original purpose Of Muncher in
this arrangement If so, he could have no relief
against her Even if he had paid the money to re-
deem Click las he did not and taken the assignment
in his daughters name, it would priRqt dcie; have
been an advancement TO her and unless the pre-
sumption were overturned by proof, his claims
would be repeled-l Yer 97-l0 Hum. 3. And we
think so far from being shaken, the presumption is
fortified and sustained in the testimony. The title
being once in Polly Ann Pearce. acts or declara-
tons of her husband Of Muncher could affect 1t,
or be evidence against her-l Yer. $40 Hum. 9.
MunCher often declared the land belonged to Polly
Ann and the weight Of the proofs that way. There
is no evidence that she redeemed for him and the
presumption and proof are that shes did not The
most that can be said is that ThOs W. Pearce was
to go on the land build and live there and support
Muucher: but this. if meant TO be contract, was
entirely between Thos W. and Nuncher and is not
traced to Polly Ann.
The statute Of fraud is not in the way Of Polly
Ann here the assignment from Click being in VII
ting and sufficient Hum. 1886. If she did not re-
deem for Muncher, but took the title advance
ment his right so was gone; certainly after the
right to redeem had expired. 1t may be that she
had only an equitable title for want Of the Sherfes
deed III Kun. 1921 and that the decree against the
Sheriff aud Click Aiuncher not being party also
failed to invest her with the legal title; but still
Muncher and his heirs having no real interest can
| have no equity against her.
There Is another view Of the case which is decisive.
In suit between Pearce and one LOney for this
lanu-Muncher when offered as a witness, for
Pearce being objected to because OF his alleged in
terest sworc he had no interest in the land and
that It belonged to his daughter Polly Ann. We
nave repeatedly held that party who thus swears
-ellhef IN an answer, or as a witness-is est0ppcd
TO SCI up uoe TO the property Sneed 80
Decree affirmed WRTfllTr
\ true copy, Test: C. W. NELSON. Clerk.