Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-10
DECIs' oNs OF THE SUPREME CoUnr.
I. OPTICAL. s.. -
Decisions Of the Supreme Court OF thS
state of Tennessee al Nashville, De-
ccmber Term, 1850. -4avas 81.

Decisiens Of the supreme Court OF the
state OF Tennessee al Nashville, De-
ccmber Term, 1850. .srs .faVat -..e
| Allen seaty ct ais vs. Jones, Scott, and Baker.
This is an action for forcible entry and detainer
by Jones, Scott and Baker against the plaintiffs in
| error in which recovery was had for the land
The tract Of land in dispute is part of tract sold
| under decree Of this Court, in 1885, for which a
writ of possession was issued in favor of John Por-
terfield the purchaser. and was executed on the
tenants and possession was delivered to said Por-
terfelds agent Abner Philips, on the Sd Of Octe-
Der, IN the year aforesaid, by one Wright then ths
Sheriff of Fentress counsy-the land being in that
county. Immediately after the execution of this
writ one James T. Scott, who was one of the ten.
ants dispOssessed by the Sheriff rented the chief
part Of the tract including the field in dispute of
Porterfeld, through hs agent, Philips ard entered
into possession as the tenant Of Porterfed and has
continued in possession ever since. He resided on
the tract about mile from the field in dispute
which he cultivated ard continued to hold az the
tenant of Porterield until the Sd of Septe,nher
1851, when he took lease for the baiauee of that
year from the plaintiffs below under the fllo-vino
circumstances: The said Jones' Scott. and BaLer a.
the creditors of one Isaac Stockton had BY decree
in the Chancery Court at Jamestown unon n hin
fled against him and others but to which Porter
field was not party caused this tract of land with
various others, to be sold on the I4th of kDril
1851 and became the purchasers thereof and Oh
tanned from that court writ, in pursuance Of the
decree, to put them in ossession of the land as
against all persons claiming by. through, or under
the said Isaac Stockton. This writ came to the
hands Ozone Lee ths Sheriff Of Fentress county who
returned the same 10 the October term 1857 endors
ea that ne had executed the writ by putting out
the tenants, and among them the said James TSeott
and placing A. A. Swope the agent of the plaintiffs
below, IN possession. Ascertaining, however. that
the said James 7. Scott and Others the tenants OF
forterneld, did not claim by, through or under
isaac Stockton and that therefore, under the wr!t
ne had no authority 70 dispossess them. the saia
Lee, the Sheriff. at the same term Of the Court en,
der an order of the Court TO that effect amenaed
his return by striking therefrom the names OF the
said James T. Scott and other tenants OF Forerheo,
and restoring them fully As before 20 ine
of said tract Of land. The said James i. oeoeL
who was examined as witness for Jones. ocots anu
Baker, after testying as to the lease ana nol1lng
under Porterfeld, stated IN substance That "nen
tn the esidenca of the witness the Sd of Septen
ber, 1857. the said Swope come with nlm and re-
ca;yad ,ossesson under the writ for Jones, Scott
Raker and Immediately, on the same day, he took
of said Swope as their agent, the lease before stat
ed and from thence held under them unti after the
next term of the Chancery Court AZ jamestown,
vghen one Northrup. the agent OF Porterfeid, saw
him and told him that the action Of the Sherih had
been set aside; that he had amended his return,
that the possession of witness under Jones' Scott 4
Raker was wrong and that Porterhelds right was
the best whereupon. he said to Northurp that he de-
sired to live On the place and if PorerfeId's claim
was the true one, he would hold under him rather |
than be put off, and for some short time he did hold
under POrterield; but soon after was informed by
the Clerk and Master Of the Court, that no
writ of restriction had been awarded and
the amended return of the Sheriff was
nulity and did not change the rights Of the par
ties and he also saw Mr.. Swope, who directed him