Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-01-22
SUPREME COURT OPINION.
THOMAS Il. cclDvnrl, Arrosssr GENERAL AND EXPORTER

rHoMAs Il. ceLDw1II, ATToaxsY GENERAL AND REFoRrER
WILLIAM and ABEER ELLIS, Executors Of JACOB Ell
LIS deceased n S. TEMPLE, Administrator Of DA-
vID SCOTT. deceased. JESSE WRIGHT, ct al
Sometime prior to 1884 Jacob Ellis the trustee Of
psnsnts sold tract of land to Wright giving him bono
OT s aPa I'VE % o the sams land to Scott
balance Of $4,000 a due Of the purchase money nom
notes for $4,000 each years, with Interest
from date and specifying the consideration
now IVES These notes Wright assigned to Ellis who
Scott deed for the land payment OF s5oo
1857, Scott sold the land to Carter.
some years prior to this time, seems that Scott had
become indebted the late Thomas L. Williams the sum OF
thousand dollars and had given him bis note with Jonn
son and Temple security On che sn Of lsS
thousand dollars due the LIST Of October following in the
10 oo The said Temple and myself from the
payment of said note 70 said Wisms scott aeo NOT
insolvency OF the estate uggesed the County Court
complanants hled the two notes creditors for then
Nothing further appears been done until October
1885, Carter executed Of attorney to confess
placed by Scott in the hands Of johnson for the ndem
nity Of himself and Temple Before ths 70
land, which sold in April 1852 to johnson and Tempe
this bill the 9th Of May 1852 and up 70 the
afterwards when johnson hed his original answer Jar
so tspdnS ssains him Tbs suit VISA mot revived against
heirs against his administrator, whose motion
~Sh he al IL Eo1snSr isso In September
1891 Temple filed his answer and made known the ct 5s
the representatives Of Carter has redeemed the land
whether the administrator or the heirs the record does not
disclose.
Upon this state Of facts questions First did
Ellis retain lien the land in the hands Of Scott for the
payment Of the BY him Wright and
afterwards assigned E1 The vendors lien upon the
od for the Of the purchase money has been
MI sugden defines il as follows Whers vendor delivers
possession Of to purchaser without receiving the
vsysd and although there not special agreement for
that purpose and whether the estate be freehold or copy
hold, gives the vendor lien the land for the
sugden ysnd. and PuFch. 1885,
Lsrd Eaon states Il thns The settled doctrine Is that
the vendor conveys record though the
sraton upon the face Of the instrument expressed to be
ne aad Ease one oasr a y y y
being paid between ths vender end Vendee and
s aS e Ggg6 Rsrhspa Ps one case for tie
whole condensation in the ether for that part Of the
which was not pad haeksetts w. rusesTes, Is Vssey
Chancellor holds language vendor Of real
estate has lien, under certain Circumstances the
the vendor for the purchase money much remains
unpaid TINS s equitable mogsEs Win bind The vo9dss and
vendor with notice Of the existence Of the vendors equity
purpose remains for the purchaser 70 show that
from the circumstances OF the 10 results that the time
The Of doctrine by Story is somewhat
fuller: The vendor Of has lien on the land FOR the
S% and Bis heirs and oh VS in sss Sut ss
against all subsequent purchasers having notice that the
the Vendee becomes rustes for tas vendor bis heirs
and al other persons claiming under them With nch notice
vendor Of real estate for the purchase money wholly indie
pendent OF possession bis part and IL attaches 20 the
estate trust equally whether Il be actually conveyed
only be contracted to be conveyed,
in establishing this lien trust that per-
who has gotten the estate Of another ought il
pay the full consideration third person. having
@ ~ tnes ns esse mas ossn 50 9essina ought
ments for Il attaches him vho Of conscience
duty 1t woud otherwise happen that the vendor might
Into predcam6nt better than his
With full notice Of all the facts" Ia. Jur 5s0-5s2
sustained against the vsndss and all claiming through
prvity with him and likewise against volunteers and
chases with notice Green and others Demoss and 9th
srs 10 Humph. 5T5.
distinction has been taken between the Of convey
anee and mere contract for conveyance In the latter the
vendor holds the title mortgage for the security Of the
hcoempbe Msgs So Eve not able TO draw discern
bile distinction between the Of legal title conveyed
payment Of the debt both
ohanosy consider the estate only security for she
entitled to sonveyaneS in the one instance and recon
Applying these principles to the easo before u.s. IL follows
that before the conveyance Scott Ellis held the title Of the
from Wright Did be- when be ehsngsd The svdsnss Il tbs
debt making Scott the primary obgse and conveyed 10 him
The Is that he did not ana there is no proof
the contrary On the other band the evidence plsnary
intended retain the iiss and while accommodating
Wright he thought be vas At the same time making his
debt stili Dishmors Jones' Geld. 50.
second Of EIlis follow the land amer the
Scott 20 Carter7 To protect purchaser from vendor
q
the estate paid ful without the notice Of the
en and must make either By plea or By an
defence Bis sdmin'trstor has not made Tho defence IL 81
On the contrary, memorandum left BY hs intss
sold him the land Sit Is be told he had paid all for
os ~ .S M 9 o ~ ropa SnS an sas
for but about four hundred doar But whatever bis nfo
had full notice Of s lien before be had paid for the prop
erty and contemplated legal proceedings 20 step
then that the len attached % the land IN Carers purchase
and descends with II to his heirs
Of yos1so9 and Temple: THIS question = aathoriatiysJ
asd others 10 Hamph $40 Il hsls that The
oF lien esnnot Be allowed 20 prevail sgaint creditors Of
.,s whether With or ishout sotis either bT ,adrmsai
shy other mode, before BIN has ad By the
oh does n acquire e character or effect Of
peehs nss spos TIE properly until the fliSg Of bill 70
creditors Of the vsnds bseoass essentially question
priority Of eas irrespective Of notice and al ether eonsas
Faions In short since Johnson and Temple b. their judg
msnt and exscutlon, levy and sale asserted their claim and
s5sS sgsa.y sPoa sss s s sSsy may VIA grave
allowed 70 rssn out Of hs proceeds 81 Carter
much onlyas they have been compelled pay
ty upon the Wians Dots AFTER e has bsea credited with
the amount an inquiry win Be oFdsEsd.
Fourth pd tia eoplsnants vars thsir testatsFs lea
scosif II aiar prinei2 that whore Of two cred
es msy resort shsr ssd TIE other . but
which tbs Latter has 40 access before gong upon that which
Acsssbls 70 Dole Ibis fsiacs u y c0ncsived, Wouid
have coBpes9 The eompauaat 70 exhaust thsf remedy
against the personal assets Of scot before goiag upon hs
4nd IN tbs possession o. Carter his heirs Poxfsrn
MoSre Atkins 1T1 and cosenkns lbs GuR1su
Bond sod Pufch 206. And complsanrts cold not
have bean eomtisd b. Carrier and hs heirs tr
securities Il il certainly ossccn against them they
have dons 20.
The result sn, IL that eonpsinants are entitled 70 r..
ssvr tbs aaosEt due upon The two pes given By scets
wright and aEned By bin - their testaor 70 BE- paid nom
ths assts o. he estate uA exhausted thea from anv
sneersmAinng vita Johssons Administered ana T.epls
that may b. eaad ~ tas inquiry already directed The
cur o ne land Bot because tbs heirs
are net before he Co1r their rights se prsraes viii act
b prsss L. The Decree tbs auss Win Be- rsmansd
70 the aersfy touTt, With isaFs eompelnaata make
sNid hess parties and 70 take account 10 e5normy With
/ The pFi5ripies hers announced.
should properly hare fallen tie estate ei Scott
a a. that estate y nsosent AID change i would In e.
t y % asrats h other creditors, hey w b. equally g.
Yded bvesn cempiai Ban Jehnsons estate and Temples
/ sne Castsf's estate
aATSARD,