Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-06-24
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Brownsville, Tennessee, April, 1868
THOMAS 4. GOODWILL, ATTORNEY orsHR.L AND n1r,s.4



Replevn By Holmark against ion to recover tv All
verdict aud judgment below fer MOlin.
Homsrk sold the hlly &c ore Hardin, who sold 20 M1
Holmark claimed bis sale Hardin was qualB-l m
the Of tue tile until Hardiu should pay b p
hand, MOlin claimed that Houarks sale 10 Hardin was AZ
s0lute, q1shs 10 sonol.iOB or reservation us
hoAtion menaOneu then The tts Boluark WHO W.
ent lied 70 the verdict and judgment But II hs sale
TO the verdict aud judgment.
sion Of competent aud material testimony BY the p
un such error such the counsel Tor H1lfarz ip7
H found in the exclusion Of The propounded BY l
bis witness N haue, whether hv heard Hardin u6i
possession Of the y LAY any thing about the u by wh
~ hed her aud further orcausg Of tbs ezcuu Of q-
versst0n, afEer Hardns sale 20 Moin between Hsm,rs
Moliu and Hardin in regagd 70 the dsputs pt ~ an
what Hardin said th>t versAton In regard 90 De 7
aud the title By whss. he held
We may b. TeadJ 10 cyucede that whtu parties alsnd b. E
relation Of thess resp the title personality and
tie 80 b. r. s 10 cortnt 10 thg piaiatia 10 sbo /, slsss
to maintain tu6 ths declarations Of the
svnde while 10 possssioa expressing tho chsacT s1i 4
cole, s07 GFeea ~. IS. ICE, 40 si Phil Ey ags H
0f Co"en aud Hill 90 p1ge 3i3
Bar the sbsJsrlrs stand 20 the way Of gy1S Oh.
plantin tn esHett this grncp and reversing thg l1ds
emit in the in band j. ha th record does dclos
pa proved W. can know ahoths7 they az,
ma erisi or imnA'sa. eompsss8t OF iDe0mpstenl Be-
may be useful 70 the pisun they may harmful hin
or they may be without brnsnt harm either party
sVmsthBg Hardin said tho title what tnst some
thing - does not appear The conjecture BE- snisran
The qnsatien But " s scarcely fair peCt this
rsvsrss ssdugs VI The Court below upoE conjecture
bosdes for aught that appears 10 MT certain shown
that Hardin made The witness heard declarations
about the title and may be that ~ the udgmsnf
snd che back ter trial. the may
the question and that be hoa Hardin Say
anything about the title Wills IN pos8 sGiCn " tbs ally
The question Pruppundeu proper 10 wban OBJ
Jeerd 10 By the defendant u proper upon Kns
u the pntn 10 sniUa the Court general yarzort o
aeeA eons proposed t. be pat 10 proof and upo
sion o. the question such general parport should have
pms IN u, eod g. enable "a Judge Of thsr NAE
rizlty and Couipetvn. y.
Ie other question proposed by the piantd 81 C. Hardin
~ another t gas properly sxci1dsd aud I
rssson taat ms dscisi aDus made afsr Hall1
nag parted "th TIE posarzs0n Of the ny and BE- ha4
pSIisa Sth Whatever claims " tile b. had Thongh mad 90
me presence o. the defendant they not, for
Isy onpstent proof agsnst hoEs Declarations 81 The
0Wn' claimant, made AFTER parting with BE
gy.etsyn snd ownership, compstsut proof asans
sNehose ~ cas- Of this kiad - Phil ~. note JOS Of
noHtn Aba y w 20 page 3f sur Leading ncts Or
bawennsB W. RUdeusis.
N ,reoVsr. the diaisalty this question
pess OF tbs former The record does disclose
at We pnrpor " the declarations OF Hardin sought BE-
prov ed, enable 90 thulr mattraty c0mg
tsnoy.
Afhrm the iudEmsni Of the Court below.
HENRY o. SMITH. Jlls4