Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-12-03
GEMPEEES APPEAL
sGNDENsED DECISIONS OF THE sU-
pKEME COERT or TENAESSEEs BH
"A. CLAY KEats. ESGt.

Condensed DECISIONS aF THE sU-
pKEME COURT or TENNESSEE, BX
"A. CLA Il AEAG. ESat.
! JACKSON, SPECIAL NOVEMBER TERM, 1867.
Coffee ys. Rufin.
VIM. RunIn died in 1857, leaving viii, by the
| terms Of which the executor, j. ID. Rufin, In
other provisions OF the win, was invested with
] ENLARGED powers Of discretion in the sale and
disposition Of the estate, directing the executor
( 10 make division Of the estate among the de
Z visees according 70 the portions allotted TO
/ each
/ HELD: l. That the proceeding for partition In
/ the she by County Court in lS1l. one of the
/ three commissioners appointed having died,
I and the report Uf the oiher Two never haYlnS
I been confirmed, was absolutely void.
,. That although IuIl diseretiO 1ary power W as
granted the executor by the VIII 10 make parti-
I tion and division among the devlsees, and
make flIle, yet the power has never been exer-
C sed by the executor.
/ g. That the order by Jno. D. Coffee and wife,
Llie wife being one OF the devtsees, to the exec
utor 70 convey part oi the really coming 20 heL
under the will is not binding on her so long a.
/ the same has not been executed by me e1ecn-
I tor, the paper not having heeu executed IN ;Ae-
/ cordanos with the registration laws or this
4 In a contract where the inadequaey OF the
price is not so mauifestly gross as TO shock the
conscience, Il may. in connection with susp-
c!ous clrcumstauces, and particularly where
there exists hduciary relation between the
parties, be regarded as fraudulent, and be re-
neyed against
D.
ssrti,ls qt,i sJSt the burden OF proof OF fair-
ness is on the trustee, or gisasi trustee
6. Eyen after the trust Is ended TO uphold the
contract on the part Of the trustee II must ap-
pear that he derived no advantage from infOr-
nation obtained by him as trustee.
:. Contracts between trustee and eestla q1te
fy-fsf will be upheld Whenever II is apparent
that no element OF fraud tnteryenes and that
no advantage has been taken.
s. When aud iuterveness. and by subsequent
sales OF part of the property, the parties cannot
be placed in statu q''o the contracts VIII oe de-
cared resciuded, ana The property undispOsed
Of returned, and relief given In money for the
part disposed OF.
3. However large or unrestricted the powers
OF q trustee may be. a court Of equity will re-
strain the exercise thereof TO prevent abuse
Ia. The rule as app led 10 trustees, requiring
them to show fairIfess, applies with equal force
to the agents, clerks, or employees, OF sudh
trustees employed about the business Of the
trust
with enlarged powers Of discretion bT the n
struIReut in his control over the tIust estate,
the general rule on the uoleet applicable 70
administrators, on Ordinary AecuIlons, uoes
not Apply. snd he viii be allowed to borrow
money al usurious interest, provided the saule
may be necessary TO the protection and pre-
sarvstIon OF the properly committed TO his
charge.
Allen vs. Ferguson. From Memphis Chaneery.
HFTD. l. That the defendant having re !
novel slaves in which he and his ward mad a
Joint interest, from the state OF Arkansas, con-
trary 10 the law or this Sta'e, he is 10 be held
the yaue Of the interest OF The ward. Tne loss
the slaves from whatever cause subsequent
to the conversion IA lls on the guardian
2 The case of AcAllister vs. OlInstead, Hum. !
90, declaring that receipt executed by a guar !
dian. ack uOwIedgiug g the csptiSu ofthe wards
estate, at er the same has come to his hands is /
conclusive against him, Is recognized; but no
such receipt appearsiu proof in this case /
s. Some of the slaves which were unlawfully |
removed from the state OF Arkansas, having /
been received by the D aintin, ihe conversion I
win be Dr5 ttgio for such did not Afterwards
come TO her possession. !
l. The guarG.,la, although appointed in Ar /
kansas viii be held 20 account here as a /
trustee. !
NorE.-It must b noted, in this case, that there
aDpearS % o statute in Arkansas f1T5lddlng the I
removal OF tine ward estate, and no Judicial ]
determination on The subject by the Courts OF I
that State. it being lie held tLat the corpus OF /
the wards estate being in Arkansas, And the /
guardian being required to settle his accounts 4
there. he was not authorized to remove the 4
prOrerty ron that state on MS mere VOlitiOn, !
ana ms doing So amounted to a conversion.
Bruce vs.. Bank Of West Tennessee. From
siempEls Chaueery.
HE,lD: That an order of the Chancellor,
Tnadc IN open court, refusing 10 grant an III
junction. is not subject 10 appeal to thus court.
The appeal Will he dismissed here, on motion,
such cases