Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-10-16
SUPREME COURT OPINION.
Knoxville, TENNESSEE, SEPTEMBER Term, 1857.
BENJAMIN F. BELL AND WEE vs. MARGARET BOW
Ut

i
| BENJAMIN F. BELL AND WEE vs.. MARGARET BOW
ERs EFT AL.
In January 1860 Moses Bowers Of Greene county, died.
at sonsthis more than tbirtv thousand d6Sl % BE- sn
oyed by his widow Margaret Bowers, Andrew s.
ers, and daughters the complainant, Mrs Bell
respc ndents Mrs johnson BY his 'ast win he left all the
property to his widow during her Ii Is with permission to
do Bat when divided that
ating account Of which appears to have
been kept BY tie estsor in what he calls the family book
the ohdre shoud all be made equal in their Inheritance.
During his life time he had given to his tract Of land
containing one hundred ane nlnesysx acres The VIII de-
vse to each daughter equivalent the ike number Of
other at tie Gwnn end called CT his farm, and provides
that they cannot agree which shall have the home place,
In july 1851 the egatess met and attempted partial de
children home place was assigned to COM
pnants Bell and wife and the Quinn place to johnson and
In consideration of the buildings place.
mated by the parties to the transaction at twelve hundred
dollars giving that extent
painsnt Bell executed for four hundred dollars
each the brother Andrew and the sister, Mrs Johnson
johnson and wife also executed to companants their bond
attaining the age tventy0ne years. Of
than and promised to furnish tain suretes
to the bond Ga further reflection both Andrew Mrs
johnson dissatisfied with the arrangement
revoked and all the papers cancelled The BY
complainant to johnson and wife IL is alleged and de-
In September following the widow Margaret Bowers and
have the compliments live with her at the home place, and
for this purpose she conveyed them her life estate therein
4
hundred dollars each he for Andrew who then v
ing died after the other Mrs Johnson
consideration that she would satisfy the contract when
did Complainant Mrs. Bell did participate
contract and always repudaed it. Likewise her sister, az
ter becoming Of repeatedly and emPhaticay refused to
ratify It.
Finally shortly before fling Of this BILL complain
ant Bell formally and in writing notified the respondents Of
Much ingenuity argument displayed discover
the rights Of the several devisees under the will and the pow
or Of appointment conferred upon the widow But in the
view we take OF the testimony, the contract Of SEPTEMBER
1861 remains incomplete executory contract but
her the project or scheme Of contract Thh never aad the
OF agreement By the consent OF the necessary parties
and consequently IL cannot be enforced ehsr at Law in
equity.
the and the execution complainant
Of four hundred dollars EACH but
the scheme, intended
separate independent be man
est justice TO have them in force while the other parts
the scheme remain unaceoupshed. Accordingly they will
be seycray annued and cancelled and the parties
out preudic from their negotiations to their separate rights
under the testator's win.
companant Bell cad Wits, and all the notes outstanding
executed By complainant Bell whether in July September
1891 70 the widow to either Of the egaees win be de-
cared void aud the parties mutually enoned fron enorc
ing them asserting any rights under them.
The proof shows that the main fnducement the part Of
Mrs Bowers TO make the agreement daugh
ter Mrs Bell and her husband to the home place and
live with her
This advantage enjoyed during the many years
family differences and she is not therefore, eAted 10
frem compliments for the use Of the home place.
Upon the principle that ne who makes
real estate to which his title known to be incomplete and
doubtfn does his risk, COmplainans Bell
allowed nothing for betterments. Bat the parties viii be
prior 20 their futile attempts at settlement.
The will equally divided Be paid 0nethIrd each
b. Bell and wife, by johnson and wife and By Mrs Bowers
true COPY MAYNARD,
Test: Special Judge
NJ L. PArTERsoS CLERK.