Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-10-16
SUPREME COURT OPINION.
KsOxvI11n, Tzssnssnr, snrrrnBna Tnan, 1856
THOMAS r. corDwrlr, ATTOnsEr eHsznAL AsD EXPORTER


WALKER EFT Al, vs. WALKER ET AL.
On the 18th Of September 1890 Henry Walker ct al fled
their tins chaneery conrt Of snesdvO against Sarah
wafer ct AL praying for the PARTITION or sale fof ths
tract Of land in Hancock county Of which one Ed
the husband of defendant SARAH and ancestor
possessed. - -
At the July Terna 1861 Of said Court serss was pro
nounced directing the Master to sell ssid And on cred
Of one and two years taking notes with good security
decree proceeded sell said land when Henry walker
became the purchaser at the price Of 81 10000.
At the January following said sale aside and
the Master crdered sell said land apen the as
directed by the decree at the former term And in
dence this latter Decree the Master proceeded the
day March, 1862 resell said land when G. K Cole
became the purchaser 81 the price Of 81 o. Of which
$1,000 waspad cash. and for the payment Of the balance
CoIema executed two notes. with C. Ramsey his
curity for the of ST 02 dre at II months
and the other at two bearing interest fem date and
payable VIM Mcneil special commissioner for the heirs Of
Edward Walker, deceased.
On about the day of the meath in which he
had made the purchase and had executed said notes. Coleman
offered pay of said notes 70 said commissioner in Tennes-
see Alabama and perhaps other bank notes. which
fused by commissioner who said would Conede-
Treasury notes. and thereupOn said Coleman paid of
said notes in Confederate Treasury notes. and deposited with
the Master kind Of currency the full of
the interest which would be due upon the maturity
with the understanding the should be returned to him
If required discharge him from liability account of
said notes. and thereapon said notes delivered to Cole
made any report Of sale or Of said payment
and Commissioner died. and their matters stood until the
January Term 1885, when decree pronounced, direct
ing proof report whether said
land had been sold by the former Master and when
whon and for what prices and also whether OF not the pur
chase money had been paid and if when and to whom
The Master reported to the Term that the land had been
sold by the former Master and purchased BY Coleman as be-
fore stated that the purchase money had been paid
the former Master by Coleman the 26th of March, 1862
confirmed and the title the vested Coleman
but during the sadleIm Of the Court decree
nouRced suspendng the former decree until the further
der Of the Court and leaving open the question Of payment
be contested BY the parties Interested and ordering r
the Master The latter decree not having been
piled with, revived at tho January Term, 1866
On the Oath of January, 1866 Of the eompainants
Henry Walker filed what called supplemental bill IN the
against Coleman in which it alleged that said pay
mn void, and that Coleman dpOsng OF his prop
ery for the purpose Of defeating recovery which might
be had against him in this and praying for writs Of
attachment An attachment was granted issued and levied
the lands Of Coleman including the tract bid of BY him
at laid SALE,
Coleman in his answer to the supplemental BILL states in
substance that it announced by the cer at said sale that
the Master would take the of the country in
that he had studousy RETAINED from bidding
for the land.
From the report Master made in obedience to the
January 1866 il appears said land sold good
CURED
It also appears that Coleman executed his note to the guar
case-oney, being the Of s5s4s7 for which amount
s;id guardian recepted Coleman, who allowed credit
notes. with interest, paid the Master in Confederate
Upon hearing of the cause his Honor the Chance
or being Of the opinion that the pretended by Cole
man to the MASTER in Confederate Treasury notes fraud
ant and void and that the passing Treasury
notes contrary to law and therefore constitute
valid payment and being further opinion that in as
dollars generally unless there was
fraud mistake in the Of the same the
written be varied by paro tes
simony SO give the maker the right to paw the
in any currency but dollars Held that said notes
due and unpaid except to the settled with
the guardian that they be up and that successor Of
the Master to whom they made payable
From this decree Coleman has appealed this Court
There dispute about the facts Of the case the only
Of Confederate Treasury the Master the
circumstances OF the case constitute valid payment and
lis notes have repeatedly held shat Confederate Trea
legal ana tresonabe purpose and that the Courts Of the
country would not lend their active aid enforce
BASED upon them But for the repose Of society," when
ac or other transactions were executed we would not al
hough predcated upon Confederate notes. disturb them
ecided at Nashville last winter and in the case Of Wref
md Cantre OVERALL I'd Caldwell $780, held
olicy unlawful illegal purpose and without any
authority Of law of which this Court cognzance
constituted corporations issued without any
al authority whatever and therefore worthless the pay
nent for property, or of pre-existng debts"
Here two propositions One Ia that Confederate Treas
notes are worthless in the payment Of preestng debts
for property The other that for the repoe of society
when contracts other executed we viii
lot disturb them, although predatsd upon Confederate
insisted argument in order to take this case
operations the first proposition stated that ii Is
executed contract within the principles Of the
of Henley ct al, Franklin ct al before to-
The facts Of the two cases widely different In that
against purchaser and his Sc
uriy upon the note in favor of the commissioner by
he same decree the Clerk, commissioner directed to
oect the money still due the sale distribute
the parties entitled. An execution had been upon
him returned endorsed Satisfied FULL The payment
the Sheriff made in Confederate Treasury notes which
we're shortly thereafter duly paid to the Clerk in whose
the judgment was pronounced and who the plain
if in the execution and who had directed by the decree
the to distribute the funds among those entitled
md he thereupon made an entry his Execution Docket
Receved Of George Love- Sheriff. sixteen hundred and
dollars and eighteen CENTS in full Of james Frank
The note mentioned in this entry upon which
he Judgment had been rendered There afterwards
the fell under the rule stated as applicable
executed contracts and affirmed the Judgment of the Coun
Court refusing the motion. In holding that case fen
nder the rule before stated in to executed con-
rae we think the Court went to the verge Of the law, and
q its application than we did in that case
the date execution of the notes one of
hch had eleven and the orer twenty three
maturity and any repo of the sale had been
confirmed the notes in suspicious haste
to the commissioner whom they made payable
nd to pay them of in bank paper of doubtful
neertan value which by commissioner and
hereupOn he paid the commissioner the full
scepts Of the guardian before mentioned currency
ned without authority OF law and for an unlawful and rea
enable purpose ard SO anxious the maker TO discharge
liability in this kind Of currency before the maturity Of
notes. that he deposited with the commissioner full
of interest which would be upon the
lrity. We wholly unable to discover from this record
by fair legitimate motive by which the maker Of these
could been prompted make payment
early day and including interest accrung there
4
beet was 20 dis barge his Liabilities and thus in advance
auduently and in this extraordinary manner,
hch he apprehended would be worthless for any purpose
he maturity of his notes.
the payment must have been made in the ordinary
con of fraud and appear to have been fair and bona e in
But another quostion presented in the consideration Of
lis case. Did the commissioner the time II is
legged this payment made to him. have the right
payment upon said notes, in any kind of money
} discharge the maker from al liability thereon
obedience decree of the Court the commissioner Of
same was struck off to him he paid $4,000 in cash upon
Of his bid and executed his notes for the balance
at one and two years. with interest from date And thus
ALTERS stood up the time Of the alleged payment TIE
lie had never been oy he court nor had any re-
oTt OF the sale IN fact been made We think clear upon
Ithory, that at the time this payment Is alleged to have
ade the sale incomplete and the transaction amounted
nothing more than bid by Coleman, OF an eher on his
to become the purchaser at the price bid by him. and to
the the purchase by the execution
bis note in compliance with the terms Of the sale,
ribbed by the Decree
should have been confirmed by the Court The commits
had power complete the sale, close
commissioner in the premises touching we're
rived alone from the decree and report the
rejected the offer Of Coleman had the offer Of
alker upon previous occasion in this case if satisfied
transactions being made TO it, and until such eonrma
complete and obligatory contract as to
sale aud purchase the land Their was the purchaser
les of real tate which it is perhaps tre mat
e respects, applies sales Of personality especial
where possession Of the property accompanies pur
ase.
Applying these principles the ander consideration
only apparent it does within the rule to
ecuted contracts before stated but IL follows that the
ssioner had the time the payment alleged to have
made right to receive from the purchaser bidder
ao had offered to become the purchaser gold anything
e in payment ofhs notes, as 10 relieve him from ab
The sale was in er and under the control Of the Court
the receipt Of the money by the commissioner, under
ch circumstances only amount to deposit By the bid
with the commissioner to be applied By him in the
punishment Of liability, which then onyIcontngent.
Suppose that prior to the action Of the Court upon the
1t Of the sale, Coleman had paid % the commissioner in
Eul Currency, rls full amount Of his notes. s3d suisse
emily the sale had been aside, could it be insisted that
leman had any lien npsn the land that the Of
land could be liable to him without having received the
ney We apprehend that such proposition could Be
nained decree viii be entered confirming the sale Of
land and confirming the decree Of the Chancellor in all
Ter respects
true copy. HAWKINS,
St: Judge.