Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-02-01
SUPREME COURT DEeIsIos.
Thomas l. coiaweIi. Attorney General
and Reporter.

Il
ton among the parties as the distributes of
William Petway, deceased, and at The March
term, 1859, Of said court, decree was pro-
nounced IN said cause directing the Clerk
Of said court to sell said slaves TO the high
est bidder, on credit twelve months. tax
ing from the purchaser notes with securi-
ties for the payment of the purchase money.
except the sum Of 500, which was required
to be paid in cash, and to make report
| thereof
The clerk, as appears from his report
made TO the May term, 1859, Of said
court, proceeded to sell said slaves, ON the
10th day of April, 1859, at which sale the
defendant r. Z. Thompson, became the pur-
chaser of one of the slaves, Amanda, at the
price Of 81 300, of which he paid $50 at the
time of the purchase, and executed his notes
with q. Tolliyer as his security for the pay
nent Of the balance, due twelve months az
ter date and payable to the Clerk.
No other steps appear 70 have been takels
in the cause, until the January term of said
Court in 1865 when it came up further 10
be heard upon said report, which being M
excepted to- was Sin all things confirmed
and 1t was ordered the cause be retained I'M.
| Ill the further order of the court.
At the following July term, Themps5n
filed bis q Parte petition, alleging the ssle
and purchase, the execution Of his note and
the confirmation Of the report Of the sales.
that no other steps have been taken in the
cause, and that his note remains unpaid.
| The petitioner further states there has been
no decree rendered in the cause, divesting
the title to said slave out Of the heirs of Pet
way, or vesting thesame in him, and asks the
court to set aside said sale, and to discharge
him from all liability on his note for the paw
ment Of the purchase money, upon the ground
that, by an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, adopted on the I'D day Of Feb
ruary, 1866, slas cry or involuntary servitude
was abolished, and all slaves emancipated,
and consequently, the court could not, by de-
cree, vest any title to said slave in him.
AT the following September term Of said
court said cause came on to be heard upon
said petition, when it was ordered and de-
creed that said sale be set aside, and that pc
| titioner's note be cancelled and delivered up,
from which an appeal was prosecuted to the
next term of the Circuit Court for Wilson
county.
Afterwards and at the November term,
1865, of said County Court, motion was
made for judgments against all the pgr-
their notes for the purchase money, when
the Court, after rendering Judgment against
the several purchasers of the other slaves,
overruled the motion against Thompson and
his security, upon the ground that, at the
preceding September term, a decree had been
pronounced in the cause releasing Thomp-
son from the payment OF his note, from
which action of the court, in overriding said
-.
At the September term, 1865, Of the Circuit
Court for Wilson county, the appeal prose-
cuted to that court from the order of the
County Court releasing Thompson from his
purchase, was dismissed from which an APP
peal is prosecuted to this court and both
causes are, by consent, heard together.
The first question presented for our con-
sideration is, did the County Court have III
risdiction to grant the relief sought by
Thompson the purchaser? Upon this branch
of the case we apprehend there can now be
but little difficulty, If former adiudications
of this court upon this point are TO be re-
garded as authority. In the case of Young
VS.. Shumate, Sd Sneed, 1863, Young fled his
petition in the County Court of Davidson
county, seeking to be discharged from his
purchase of slave made under a decree of
by him for the payment of the purchase
money delivered up to him, upon the ground
of the unsoundness of the slave and conse-
quent failure of the consideration, and al
leging that he was defrasded In the sale.
In this court, it was argued, in addition to
the ground stated in the petition, that in con-
sequence of inequalities in the proceedings,
the sale of the slave was void and comrnuni-
Gated no title to the purchaser But this
court declined to consider the case. upon
either of the grounds assumed in the argu-
ment, saying, if the positions we're adj
mitted to be sustained BY the record we feel
very clear that upon different ground the
petition must be dismissed, and that Is the
entire want of Jurisdiction in the County
Court to grssat any redress in the case
stated in the petition" But it is now
insisted in an elaborate and able argu-
ment that, by sections 1904, 1905 of the
Code, the Legislature intended to confer
upon the court an enlarged jurisdiction
upon this subject, and to give it the power
TO give relief in such cases, and to hear pc
titions, set aside sales &C., at any time
whilst the cause remains in court for any
purpose. We admit the FEASIBILITY of the
argument. But in the case Of Bond VS..
.
directly before the court, when il was held
that these sections are merely declaratory of
the law, as it previously existed In regard
to the jurisdiction of the county court, upon
the subject, without yesting in that tribunal
any new or pore extended powe- or au-
ihority, and the assumption that, by the pro-
vision of the section before referred TO, new
or enlarged jurisdiction was intended to be
L..
unfounded. Upon a careful examination Of
the question we are satisfied with the ruling
of the court in that case, but were its cor
rectness even doubtful, we would feel con-
strained 10 recognize il as an unauthoritative
settlement of the question. But it is in
sisted the cases Of Young vs.. Shumate, and
Bond vs.. Clay, are not authorities in this
case because in the former cases the reports
of the sales had not only been pronounced,
vesting titles in the purchasers, but we think
that can make no difference.
Before the confirmation Of the report of
sale, the sale is incomplete, and the County
Court possesses the incidental power of set
ting it aside, bat the confirmation Of the
report of the sale, the purchaser having
complied with the terms, not only complete
the sale, but at least in cases Of the sale Of
personality when no lien is retained vests IN
the purchaser good and valid title TO the
property. We understand this 10 be the
well settled doctrine upon this subject "a
has been fully recognized by This court at
the present term, in the case Of Card and
wife, vs.. Bonner. And IL the confirmation
of the reports not only complete the sale,
but also vests in the purchaser title TO the
property az eiiectualiy as a decree, upon its
face and in express terms directing and vest
ing title we are unable TO see any reason for
the application Of different rule.
We are, therefore, Of the opinion, that az
ter the confirmation of the report Of the sale
Of the slave 70 the petitioner Thompson, the
County Court had no jurisdiction to set aside
the sale, or to order that the note given for
the purchase money be delivered up, or can
celled, or in any manner that the purchaser
be discharged from his obligations. IL,
therefore, follows that the order 70 that ef
feet, made at the September term, 1865, of
the County Court, was a mere nullify, and
cannot in any manner prejudice the rights
of the parties.
1t is also insisted, and we think correctly,
that in this class Of cases an appeal does not
lie to the Circuit Court from the order on
Judgment of the County Court
Section ALA Of the code provides that
any person dissatisfied with the sentence,
judgment or decree Of the County Court,
may pray an appeal 10 the Circuit Court Of
the County, unless il il otherwise expressly
provided BY this code"
This we think IL done in the following
aacfion which Droyfxea that AIN all c,,aes IN