Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-04
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME CoURT.
Decisions OF the Supreme Court of the
state of Tennessee at Nashville, De.
cember Term, 1850.


Decisions OF the Supreme Court of ths
state of Tennessee at Nashville, De.
cember Terms 1850.
NJ. Ridey's Ex' r. and ais. Vs. Ridley and ais.
The original bill in this case was filed by Moses
Ridley against the widow and heirs of Henry Ridley
for account The facts in brief, as shown by the
pleadlngs and proof, are, that Henry Ridley, who
was the owner of considerable estate and much
in debt died in July 1885, suddenly, Of cholera after
having upon his death bed requested his brother,
Moses Ridley, in whom he had the utmost confidence,
to take the Management of his estate. Moses Ridley
IN November OF the same year qualified as his ad-
ministrator in Rutherford county, Tennesl e3, and
shortly afterwards in Kinds county, Mississippi; but
for seme infoI maity by the Probate Court IN taking
the bond in Mississippi the said Moses Ridley was
removed by the same Court, at the instance of one
of the defendants after thirteen years Of faithful
service for the benefit Of the estate Of his deceased
brother.
The estate of Henry Ridley in Mississippi, at the
time of his death, consisted of a plantation and
slaves most of which, had been purchased on
credit by him just before his death.
Moses Ridley continued the cotton planting in Mis-
sissiPp (until he renewed about lst June le4e)
greatly to the interest Of the widow and heirs of
his deceased brother; the estate having been much
improved In that time.
Ihis case before the Court three years ago
by appeal from the decree of the Chancellor order
ing an account, and at which time the acting and
d0lngS OF SAID MOSES hlQiey IN carrying On Ine
Mississippi farm were carefully examined and fully
approved, and the cause remanded for an account
the basis having been fully and definitely settled.
Upon taking the account, by the Masters report,
it appears that the estate of H. Ridley was indebted
to the estate of Moses Ridley, (the latter having
died shortly after filing the bh) foTtsiqh thousand
tco hundred aad eightySir dollars and fifteen cents.
This report was excepted to by both parties, and
upon the hearing a decree was pronounced by the
Chancellor for hrty-eigti thousand tro hundred and
three dollars and sigbty-One cents. From this decree
both parties appealed.
Ali the points arising upon the exceptions have
been examined by the Court and though requiring
much patient labor-the record being one Of eight
hundred pages-yet we have had but little dIfhcul-
ty except upon a single exception. The eighth eX-
ceptiOn of defendants is IN these words: because
the Clerk and Master allows Moses Ridley q credit
of five thousand dollars paid to Thomas NJ War
ren when the proof shows that no such debt was
owing by the estate of Henry Ridley, nor was that
amount ever paid by Moses Ridley out of his es-
taten
This exception was allowed by the Chancellor,
and the five thousand dollars and the interest there
on were stricken out of the report By the decree.
We have carefully examined all the proof upon
this item, and find the question raised by the eX-
ception by no means free from difficulty.
The note, upon which this payment is claimed as
a credit, was made by Thomas S. Anthony payable
to Warren for $4,000, dated 9th June, 1884, and due
lst March, 1885: and on which 81 ,433 rs had been
paid, as shown by endorsement on the back OF
the note, in cotton, on the 25th March, 1885.
The balance of the note is the subject OF the eX-
ception, and whether Moses Ridley paid it Is the
question. This note, with two others for ten thou
sand dollars each, of the same date, and due res
pectively lst March, 1885, and lstt March, $50,
was given for tract of land and some slaves IN
Mississippi bought by Anthony of Warren on the
day of the date of said notes. On the 29th of Sep
tember, 1884 Henry Ridley and Anthony entered In
TO partnership in cotton planting IN Mississippi Ar
ticles were drawn and signed by which Ridley
was to be the joint owner with Anthony OF the land
and negroes bought of Warren. and he was to pay
one~half the purchase money-the articles specify
ing the three notes which amounted to SZ9,O9O. On
the 2lSt May, 1885, Ridley bought the remaining
moiety of the land and slaves from Anthony, agree
ing to give for the same and other property added
$40, ,000 This agreement was reduced TO writing,
and sets forth the mode and manner of payment.
The argument on behalf of complainant IS, that
a balance amounting to about FIVE thousand dollars
of the $4,000 note remained unpaid at the death
of Henry Ridley, ald that Moses Ridley paid the
same in 1885, and that he shoul1 have credit there
for because by the terms of the contract OF ~ Sep
tember, Henry Ridley to pay one half this debt;
and especially because by the terms OF the sale from
Warren to Anthony, Warren had lien upon the
property, laud and slaves, for the whole S29,OuO
In other words that the estate which came into the
hands of Moses Ridley, administrator, was encum-
bared with a mortgage to secure the $4,000. We
see from this record that the lien existed and there
fore if Moses Ridley paid the debt 1t was valid
payment. for which he should have credit. But
the question Is, did Moses Ridley pay the balance OF
the 1900.
Thomas NJ. Warren distinctly proves that Moses
Ridley paid him that balance in Nashville in 1885,
through H. r. W. Hill. And Moses Ridley as his
administrator files the note, and there is proof that
Moses Ridley was able to pay the debt though
he might have received nothing from Henry
Ridley's estate. For aught that appears in
this record Thomas NJ. Warren is a repu-
table witness, and we have investigated this
case giving him full credit The fact that Moses
Ridley had the means to pay amounts TO little or
nothing, as the only witness relied on TO prove the
payment says it was paid through H. +. ". Hill; and
the additional fact that complainant filed the note
is neutraized by the fact that as administrator
Moses Ridley doubtless received all the papers of
Henry Ridley. THIS leaves the positive testimony
of Thomas W. Warren upon the one side, and tho
facts and circumstances on the other hereinafter
ferred to, TO be weighed.
The note in question fell due lat March. 1885;
Henry Ridley died 22d July, 1885, and Moses Ridley
was appointed administrator on his estate lst No
yember of the same year; so that if Noses Ridley
that time.
1t is true that Henry Ridley in his lifetime, and
Moses Ridley, as his administrator after his death,
raised large amounts of money, under an arrangeN
ment with II. r. W. Hill by drawing bills on and
having them accepted by n. J. Dick & Co., of New
Orleans, of which firm Hill was member. Hills
deposition was taken but he proves no such pay
ment for Moses Ridley. And the account current
of n. 4 j. Dick d Co., which is exhibited and prov
en- to be correct by Hill, contains ne item cores
pondIng with the matter of the eighth exception.
But Hill does prove, and the account current of
n. & J. Dick shows, that on the 18th day of May,
1885, Henry Ridley drew two bills on N. d J. Dick
& Co.. amounting to Sll 1926 and on the same day
he borrowed of them 500. This money was doubt
less in part applied to the payment of debt of S7s
s43 81 due from Anthony to \. d J. Dick Co., and
which Henry Ridley, by his agreement with An
thony, had assumed. This left of the proceeds of
said bills about 50, ,445.
This was not enough TO pay off the $4,000
note but it is shown in the proof that he had good
credit, and few days thereafter executed his two
notes, amounting to about $1,000 to NJ. G. Reevis;
which were, in all probability given for hOnored
money. The argument that part of the proceeds
of said two bills applied to the payment of the
note in controversy, is much strengthened by the
memorandum thereon, showing that the interest on
the balance was computed up to that day. 18th May,
1885.
By the two ten thousand dollar notes, as well as
the notes toReeves and many other vouchers IN this
record, 1t is shown that Moses Ridley, IN paying
notes as we'll as aceounts usually particular to
take receipts on the back, showing that he as sd-
ministrator paid the sum- but there is no such re-
ceipt on the back of the $4,000 note.
Again: On the 2lst May, 1885, when Henry Ridley
bought from Anthony his remaining moiety of the
land and slaves in Mississippi, the former gave to
the latter bond in the sum of forty thousand dol
lars conditioned to do certain things and among the
rest is this explicit and sgnie mt provision: "NCw
these presence witnesseth that the above bounden
Henry Ridley is to take up, pay, discharge, and
hand over to said Thomas two bonds, obligations or
promissory notes of ten thousand dollars EACH exc
cuted by the said Thomas s. Anthony to Thomas NJ
Warren, late of Mississippi, and now of Williamson
county Tennessee. one of which notes or writings
obligatory falls due lst March, 1885, the other to
become due and payable lst March, 1887" When
we remember that the three notes, amounting to
S29 000 were given for the identical property which