Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-12-18
SUPREME COURT OPINION.
TENNESSEE, SEPTEMBER TERM, 1867.
TOMAS H. coLDwE1I, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER
SAMUEL n. FAM ct al VS. JOSEPH H. HEADEBIc


that Joseph W. Headerck indebted them IN various
sums Of money due By notes Of hand &C and seeking oy az
secure the payment thereof.
The bill slledges that the defendant, Joseph Hsaderck
the of valuable tract of land in Jefferson county,
which contained about 92 and which in Oct 1867 he
had sold to his codefendsnt Amegro Noel for the sum o.
SIS 600 90 in Confederate Treasury notes Ten thousand dol
lars of which paid in hand aud the remainder BY a.
greement, was payable In one, tive and three years
stalments when due in Confederate money which
fused by Headerick, leaving $500 OF the original sum s
On the 3rd of june 1866 Joseph W. Headerck sold By
deed conveyed land for the consideration Of IS SEQ
his Charles b. Headsrck which duly registered
the day its execution No part Of this to
have paid and afterwards the 10th day fully 1885,
the Headercks and Noel under bond submitted all the
matters Of controversy rowing cut OF the sale to Noel and
the payments made thereon to the arbsaent and award
of L. f. Leeper, James Fuller and A. h. Meek who after
returned their award in which, among other thiAgs
contract but as he had paid in Confederate money
upon it, she should continue hold the possession Of said
and damages which if paid within month from the date
of the award the said Noel shall give said Headeek the po
of said land the LIST day CT January 1865
the of failure the part of said Hesderck to make
said payments that said Noel proceed to advertise and sell
The bill further charges the W. cad
erick, TO his Charles II. was strictly voluntary, aud
former and Noel also void because founded illegal
consideration and the award consequently imperative 70
confer any higher other rights the pares than
they enjoyed before.
It is also alleged that Noel is about to sell the land and bv
Compliments debts.
shortly after this bill filed i've other bills we're
hled, seeking the relief among which fled
the 1lth daof April 1850 by Andrew Ramsey against the
defendants in which it is alleged the 2st day Of
August 1865 he recovered Judgment against Joseph W.
Of L. D. Franklin for 81 and COSTS and that execution
sued thereon which for want OF personal property
levied the lands of Jos W Headerek than occupied by
his codefendant Amegro Noel under and illegal and void
contract of sale.
his son. Charles H. ealy fraudulent and void as
having hinder delay creditors but cham
mpescIes She award and ayerkat the deed and aWsrre
from cloud the title to the land, which the Complain
and uf
Noel answered which by taken an answer
to all the bills.
as cross BILL He does not controvert
justice claims against his codefendant Jos
Headerick, the 18th of September 1862 for SIS O0OO
Confederate bonds and that he paid $4,000 in the same
funds, except $1,000 in salt The balance he alleges
rendered in Confederate money and refused The
Of the deed from JOS Headerick to his Charles H.
Headerick is admitted but it executed with full knwo
edge that the land had been previously conveyed the
spOndent and that the vendor Charles Headerck had
paid rent for the same, for the year 1888 and "a.
insists that the contract between him and JOS W. Headerck
executed He his vendor executed to him IT,
tie bond which has been lost mad and under which he
took possession, and has held it since
standing the illegal consideration paid for the land the
spOndent insists that the submission and award make valid
and legal and as such capable of being enforced in Court
of equity.
ein declared the land by the arbrators enforced
and the land to be sold, which he purchased the
1t insisted that the the two Headercs are bound
5 the award because they were present ana consentng
upon the land, the legal was in Charles h.
BE aderick and the equitable title in respondent.
The Headereks answered the original bill filed by
Fain, and also file their answer bill against Noel
They admit substantially the allegations in the BILL
insist that the award founded illegal consideration
and utterly void
Joseph w. Headerick and Charles II Headerick answer
Ramseys bill and the former insists that the to Noel
in paro and that the sale to Charles H. Headeck
in good faith and without fraud &c. Charles r. Headerck
denies all fraud and ohamperty.
The defendants demur to Noels BILL which the Chan
ceer sustained and in his final decree declared the deed
from JOS W. Headerck to Charles II. Headerck ehanper
tons and void and that neither the submission bond and
award or the title bond to Noel proven regis
tered prevent the lien Of Ramseys JUDGMENT and the
levy Of the other attaching creditors the legal title beag in
the defendant JOS Headerck and that Ramseys bill
properly filed to the cloud and directed
sale OF the lands reservng the question Of the application
enerai state of the facts as presented in the
peadngs there being little evidence in the
Gus questions are presented in argument, which think
may all be resolved into two
l. What the operation effect Of the deed frem Jos
W Headerck to his Charles H. Headerick dated the 3rd
june 1850 and registered on the day. the cred
itors of the vendor
End. Did the submission bond andaward although spring
ing out Of Illegal consideration, together form new con-
tract, which court of equity enforce
The precise nature of the contract between Joseph W.
Headerick and his codefendan Amsgro Noel not
stincty appear Noel alleges that was in writing and
evidenced by bond for ~ which been lost or usaid
tie bond executed Both admit the SALE and Noe possession
under it, together with his payment $4,000 in Confsder
the contract verbal in writing not appear nor
DO We THINK IN the view we have taken Of the it
tefal Tor whether the contract Of sale rested paro
evidenced by memorandum in writing clear that
NOEL the possession Tor himself
versly vendor This actmanested BY the in
theRleading well tho recitals
known to his vendor JOS W. Headrich under the prnc
pies Of the case o. Buard VS. Caps End Hum 400 the
The fact that the Codes $780, declares that Ii any per-
sell any lands snements not having possession of
them by himself agent or tenant the being adversely
held by color Of title.
Champery shall be presumed the purchaser shows
that sneh sale bona ls difference This
provision of the Code from clause Of the
hrst section OF the act OF ISL chap Co. which indirectly
underwent construction in the of Billiard Caps
which the tenant dsolamed his landlords title and
hold for HIMSELF and the delivering It's opn
ion That the moment the disclaimer the tenant known
to the landlord MS possession becomes adverse and this adj
possession continuing years the statute
atons form bar to the landlords recovery. But does
not require length of adverse possession make sale
Of the land possessed BY another cham
fact occurs IL the case Of tenant his disclaimer
sion OF land under verbal contract in many respects are
unlike those su6sisting between landlord and tenant
The fermer, says this in the case Of James W
Paterson lessee Swan 300 hold exclusively
consideration OF his possession restore Fo
session of the premises to the seller"
" He owes fealty to the seller claiming hold
in opposition to him. In refusing surrender the posses
sion TO hin, he Is guilty of no breach Of faith"
tent with the contract under which he let into
Bat while all this is true, by implication Of law
some purposes to be held quasi Of bis vendor
Chiffon vs. NibIett Srd Hum, 4O4 Valentine Cooley
eg5 X t5 Ard IN such in the absence Of proof to
the contrary he will by implication law be presu
a 20 hod IN that Character OF tenant at will Of the
But very slight evidence will rsbat this presumption
Eheb as No haIe rests merely upon implication or
81 W and does not arise out Of contract In
act as was bsd In the Of James, Paerson lessee
# the premises to the purchaser under contract of ale and
imposed upon him obligation TO hold the possossion Cor
1oee how the purchaser holding otherwise The statute
al bar ms right Of entry under the second Of the
Now applying principles to the facts Of the case 1t
obvious ina: The conveyance by Joseph W. Hesderck
H.. 80
Tacter IN which Noel was holding within acts
igsnst Champerty, and therefore utterly void
End In answer 70 the second proposition admIt4n that
he contract Of sale between Joseph W usaderi@l sn @
NoT, foanded Illegal consideration,
insisted that the submission bond and award together
orm new contract predieaed on one anu y dol
" the fees, COSTS delay and expenses incident 10
v hich are sufficient to uphold II.
The contract Of sale clearly to be for oonfedsr
tie money bat Noel in his cross bin that
paid $50 90 in salt which included in the s00
admitted to have bssn paid Joseph w Ieaderick In bis
answer and cross bill states that the Of 100000 was
aid in the notes and bonds Of the Confederate States thus
substantially denying the allegation the defendant Noels
ross bill There no proof this point III the record
having been made In Confederate money and We are ef m
er tae iaets o. the case, without discretion tc in
Then, what effect Of the submission and award n The
lrbitTators on the rights Of the parties?
II y clear from inspection of the provisions OF se Code
ectioD 1882 seq On the subject Of srbratou that thew
ths aet u leoo, chapter 20, on the same subject,
rom which the former msnfestly drawn 10 follows
ouneed in the Of Haleyvs. Long Peok Reports a3
o. has not been supereeded BY legislation BY
ny adjudication Of this Court Of which have knowledge
In that tho doctrine Is Announced that when therss
submission to Arbitration, that the aFbtrltors
ontary 70 law. They generally wider range IN the
jutment Of the matters dispute than be
ised BY court, and their action favoraby
trued But they csnnos. general rule award anything
ontrarg to law. Morgan Mather End KS Jr is fr
ne parties intend 70 submit to them only the legal
uences Of their transactions and engagemeBts s. Taunt
=, sd on awards Isl 81
THIS doctrine j. finded In the obvious reason an
lorty Parties submitting their disputes d the arbfra
ieHi Of their chosen judges presumed 10 DO so upon
considerations g dispatch the saving expense AMI
oubc and not tOgsin any supposed sctfleueo
lr disputes y any other rules PRINCIPLES Of Law
iuity than would be applied Ia The Judicial forums 70
old otherwise would b. 10 stismafize itzof A. at
undod and justice calculated setfla tho
spute Of mankind upon principles morality and right
Bur nd