Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-10
NUMBER 9.

X
% hold the possession and keen nm the fsncss s,r
Jones scott and Baker, which Vitae.s aeresd 10 10
ann oia Ana Wnale 30 in possession about the lar If
APRIL lsoe, tne Plaintiffs in error came inso pos-
session o. me ano N dispute against bis will-his
fodder stacks being fenced Cd IN peu in ne e.il
and went TO plowing and made crop and ,-s,a 4,
possession, claiming Hnder Porter6sld ~. ~
warrant issued on the lIth Of October. lsss ;s
ness tended part Of the field that year and nia;-
tifs in error the balance and at the tina 49,
in he held and claimed for Jones', Scott and Bsker
and has so held and claimed ever since. The Sheria
and Swope did to the field in dispute nor ne.rer
than half mile but witness &C that time was he
only tenant and it embraced in the lease then
executed. Neither did the Sheriff upon disco7erinz
Dls want Of authority and the amendment OF bis
return come again upon the land restore the par
tles to their previous state.
Northrup, the agent for Porterheld for the man.
agement Of the land was examined for plaintiffs in
rr0r and proved that he had rented TO one BIsdsos
tne spring OF 1851 and that Bledsce paid him the
rent IN the fall of that year when tie CROP nasursd
Siu gave MN back tna possession that james T.
oeot sald to him n the same fall that he had Moth
ing iartner to do with the place only TO 9st his fo
an away and to use the pasture and wit
ness could rent It to any one he pleased exeDs the
part winch had his growing wheat on it iust ao-~o
mnlce ne Wlsned protected; that he talked 70 wit|
ness frequently between that tina and ths instit,
ton oa sne SUIT and he always told him he claimed
under Rorterheld; that witness d,-ns, ~. -;-s.-
requested Beatty, one OF the uIapt 5 - h
lived near the land to keep IN the fencss - ~
and witness did once twice x nm tba fsc,s -.
in March, 1858, upon the land witness vsrs re
tield IN dispute to the plaintiffs in error and told
them TO go in when they pleased; that Jane. r scrfs
then had his fodder in the field II doe. ~, s-s.
from anything in this record, whether tha kssrs-
title to this land is in Porter6eld or In Jons. 60,
Baker, as neithr deraigns any sitls-nor Is his ma
teriaL Jones, Scott Baker resided in nPhiadeInhi.
and never had actual possession of the Iard 40
1olr m - Tr1flrr I. a.
posed possession acquired by them through tke
wrongful act of Lee the Sheriff and ia subssousuf
alleged invasion by the entry Of the pairtifEs in
error under the leafe from Northrup a. agent 0
Porterfeld, who resided In Nashville and there IA
no evidence that he knew, &c any time, that James
I. Scott was holding under Jones, Scott Baker if
the fact was Nor Is there any reason to believe
that Philips or Northup knew it-eEen If they had
authority to enter upon and sue for the premises
so as to make notice to them bind PorterfeId: and
the exact nature Of their authority or agency does
not appear. What transpired between James T.
scott and Northrup as to the effect Of the Sherins
Illegal act in attempting change the possession Of
the land-even if Northup had any suitable power
guard, since James T. Scott renewed his holding
under Porterfield and always claimed to Northruo
to be Porterfeld's tenant. It i plain "a We
think, that the action Of Lee, the Sheriff
and Swope, the agent Of Jones, Scott
Baker, under the writ Of possaszion dsd
did not Gust destroy the POSSESSION Of Portereid
and that it continued as before; Jones, Scott and
Baker having acquired right to the possession.
The Sheriff had no authority to interfere with Po<-
terhelds tenants. and what he did was merely void
The lease taken by James 7. Scott Of Swope was un-
der mistake Of the facts and Of the true stats Of
the rights Of the parties and under pressure OF the
process and void, as fraud upon the possession Of
Porserheld. Il has been often held that whert the
claimant by fraud, induced another to take lease,
or to enter under him, upon false representation
as to his title the contract is VtiSted By fraud IL
Hum. 1861 Head 433. Il was not only wrong
ful and void rs to Porterield but il placed James
T. Scott under no estopPel as to Jones' Scott 4 b.
ker ; and in truth conferred upon theu no right
whatever. It is apparent here from the facts that
Jsmes T. Scott did not receive the possession from
Jones, Scott Baker but that being in possession
under and IS the tenant Of P0rserfeld, he merely,
without actually being put off, yielded 70 the wrong
full demand Of the Sheriff and Swope and under
total Inisapprehension of the Sherifs power and
duty under the writ and Of hs OWE duty 10 Porter
field as his tenant att0rned TO jones' Scott and Bs-
ker. All this operated nothing and he was still ths
tenant Of Porterfeld. Il viii thus he seen that
Jones, Scott and Baker not only never acquired any
right Of possession but that Porter6eld, from the
Sd of October 1855, period of mere than three
years before the commencement of the suit had held
possession Of this land BY his tenants
: The charge of his Honor, the circait Judge, and
the finding Of the jury being At varisnce with these
views, the Judgment Of the Circuit Court must Be
reversed and a new trial awarded WRIGHT.
A correct copy !: ]. v. CLARK, Clerk.