Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1865-10-04
September 18th, 1865.
SCPtcMucL %Sluj
Grant Ford, ct ais, VS.. Lark Ford, ct a

September 10Th, 1868.
Grant Ford ct ais, vs. Lark Ford ct ais
,HANCERY CAUsE-FrOm Washington county.
Maxwell and Millegan, for compliments
Tho. 4. Il. Nelson for defendants.
Maynard Special Judge-delivercd the opinion of tn
court.
The OBJECT of the bill was filed invoking the aid o.
equity TO set aside the probate Of WILL the ground
of forgery recently discovered 1t appears that the
discorsry Is merely cumulative, and upon well
tied principles would have been sufficient for
new trial even while the cause was pending at law
These are material and radical facts and the bill mus
be dismissed the demurrer The costs will be paid BY
the compainant and their security. The will be
rcmandcd for account Of the defendants hire.
David Whitoside in error, r. P. Button, agent &c
LAW CAUsE-From Granger county.
But two questions present themselves for our consider
alton Gs It is insisted that the plaintiff below is de-
scrbcd in the warrant agent for the Lynohburg Viz
gnian and there is proof Of his agency that the
contract made with him, that he had any interest
in the recovery.
The words agent for the Lynchbu1g Virsinian7 arc
merely descriptive of the person, who rules and may be
regarded SUTpusagC the record shows that the Lynch
burg irGinian' was the plaintiffs paper
3D. 1t is insisted in argument, that there but two
witnesses examined and their testimony Is conflicting
there is therefore evidence to sustain the verdict
Without determining the precise questions raised in the
argument Is sufficient say the record does not raise
the question. The bill Of exceptions does not show that
these two witnesses the only witnesses in the case
that it contains all the evidence in the case and in
the absence of such statement in the record, It will be
presumed the evidence warranted the verdict The Cir
cult Judge who tried the cause having over-ruled the
motion for trial, and there being in the
record the judgment will be affirmed Hawkins, Judge
William Mullenix, Admir-, &C. ct ais Robert Pickens and
others, Bill, and Robert and Mary pickenS VS. William
MulGnix, ct ais Cross Bill.
ThoS. A R. Nelson, for Mullinix
Thos. D. Arnold, for Pickens.
Shacleiord Judge-delivered the opinion of the
of which very brief abstract only Is here given. In
1874, bill filed in the Chancery Court ut JonesbO-
rough by james Pickcn and Others claiming seven out
Of thirteen shares Of tract of land owned formerly by
Mack Osborne deceased against Hunt his executor and
the heirs at law to set aside purchase Of the land made
by Hunt at Sher sale and also to procure sale of the
same, in lieu Of Partition Pending this suit the interest
of James Pickens ST., sold at Sher's sale, and
purchased by Mrs. Bragg from whom it was redeemed
by James Pckens Jr at the instance and for the bene-
fit Of James Pckcns, Sr. Pickens and Hunt both hay-
ing died the suit revived and the land was after
wards sold pursuant to decree Of the Chancery Co ur
and purchased by BiTdwe and from the decree the
heirs Of James Pickens Jr appealed this court where
the Chancellor decree reversed, and the
rcmandCd because they not properly before the
Courts when the sale ordered.
After the rCmandel, the heirs Of James
Pckcns, ST., part of the heirs of Osborne and Bi-dwe
filed their Supplemental Bill against all proper parties
in which they prayed that the Masters sale should be
confirmed Cross Bill filed by the heirs Of James
Picken, JT and they insisted that the administrator Of
James Piekcus, Jr., should be made party. Held by
the court
J. mat James lthCIs, BdI any Title from Mrs.
Bragg it descended his heirs law, and his personal
representatives was not a necessary party.
, That upon the facts Of the case, the redemption or
purchase from Mrs Bragg, made the instance and
for the benefit Of James Pckens ST. that the purchase
money in part adv anced by him and the residue paid
to james P-kens, Jr that trust resulted in favor Of
James PckcnS, ST. and that the heirs law Of james
pickens Jr, had No title to the land.
3, That all the parties in interest desire confima-
ton Of the Masters sale and the proof shows clearly that
The sale for full and fair price the title Of Bird
we'll viii he confirmed.