Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-16
SUPREME COURT OPINION.

SUPREME COURT OPINION.
NASHVILLE, TENSKssEib DEcEMREE TERM, 1867.
THOMAS a. cOLDwErr, ATTORNEY And REPORTER
JOHN A. ELLIOTT, EXECUTOR OF JAS. A BLAIR DE,
CEASED AND TEST MENTAR Y GUARDIAN OF SARAH
BLAIR, SARAH +. BLAIR, PETER PEAcHER,
ct Al.
Many years ago George Elliott died ia the state Virginia
lcavins widow aud I've shdre and considerable estate
consisting Of slaves money ETC. The widow and her ays
aonsgSmey county tennessee and took the conveyance
themselves a. tenants in common and there after
edpon cultivated the laad. time some Of IN,
children minors and all the daughters unmarried On,
the daughters Mary, afterwards married Thos
and SARAH James Blair socn AFTER MAry marriage nus
baud ThOs A. Haynes, desiring separate his s inter
est ia the estate agreed with al the parties Ia interes
sse the value Of Haynes land ana other prop
ery The commissioners met together ana made division
est N the real and pestsble property the Of 2
o which the other parties eEcted their bond Haynes and
wife and they their joint rsegt aequttancs full Of al
some lime afterwards Mrs Blair died leaving her husband
James Blair and intant enid, Sarah Blair defen
dant surviving her james Blair have been man
Of considerable estate and IN 1851 he determined remove
Eate Of Texa going he and he other par
ties IN interest," excePt HAyaes WIFE, sold b deed with
Peter Psacher sum Of $3.50 per acre
me aeso seeea ne consideration and the execution o. ne
lien therefore upon a face Tie purchaser saeher, ned-
ae took possession Of The land paid portion Of the
Psrcnas price o9. s owes with the accumuiatea
daughter N Tennessee with her relatives, and his return
early in 1880 he exeeued wiz, snd died some short ns
real and personal hs daughter Sarah with limitation over
% The event Of het death under twenyone years w9ous
tves II the win tie testatOr recies The sale Of me ah
should pay de .soSsy and should thereafter be
tured IN The possession By The daughter or any one
under her. that all cosss damages or injury la s q Hs
assigns should thereby sustain should be paid 9ui q s s
tais being his intention 70 protect fesShs , bs -
eeive a liberal CONSTRUCTION. -. , -, 49,,
viii and also guardian Of the estaioTs daughter
sarah Blair such he has qualified IN both capacities IN
1860 Peacher being failing circumstance conveyed
portion Of The land purchased as Aforesaid with other proper
der mentioa ned In The shortly after the execution Of this
d.o ~ pessber sied their b ia TIE ohanceT court
Montgomery county, alleging that the deed from Peacher
and that Il was therefore and void The bin sought
to tseh the property and prayed that be deed be
satisfied OF the surplus, etc.
cded that property sold and b. Ksee appointed
conduct the sale, with instructions report
by the commissioner and H. Drane became the purchaser
Of the land amounting, was supposed to about $50
the purchaser and the commissioner precise
Of contained ia the tract he did not the
sale, his for the purchase money
however, reported ~ TIE court and survey
lands ordered survey made and the quantity Of
land accurately ascertaned 500 acres But before
report Of the survey made the
was made and confirmed By The ohanceor Al this time the
purchasers payments for the andhe having entered into
possession under the term Of the salebeng all due claim
made against him for the principal and interest Of purchase
money ana ne tue dyesed and vested IN Dane subject
however, 70 a isn ior the unpaid purchase money
Bot prior 70 this in the year 1891 the compaiaant Elliott
executor Of Jaes Blair deceased and the other vendors
Peacher had hed their petition in said their
upon the property for the unpaid purchase money and the
sned against Drane satisfy the original
unpaid purchase money be applied for that purpose and the
the other creditors under The future order Of the court
short time Il seems after the adjournment Of the
~ourfin al nrO-
nounced, Il discovered that there defect in his title
to pOron the purchased By commission-
e sale interests Haynes and wife and the
defendant Sarah Blair had been conveyed TO Peach
attempted partition between widow and
heirs Of George Elliott deceased found to be in con-
also he conveyance OF James Blair imperative 60
but his tile bJ The courtesy leaving his death the fee in an
undivided interest 10 the land his Slaughter Sarah Blair
Pending this litigation Haynes and wife executed deed in
due and ga ior with Pryy Tor their Eadtgded
interest IN The land 20 the complainant John Elliott and this
dan sarah Il Blair have Inc sale 70 brsne perfected by d.
vesnE her interest in the land thereby perecng Drane
and published bis last viii and testament by which he devised
his estate to bis wife, Elisa Drane and also appointed her his
eKecurx She into aud resists this application
and her attorneys appointed guardian sd Item Of Sarah
Blair who, before shown, is made parry defendant
Added this complicated state Of facts in 1867 Mrs. Drane
cleo her crosb by which she aside the
her husband made under the Chancellor
grounds Of fraud and jurisdiction the court
The proof shows that James Bars estate besides
Texas and Missouri amounts 20 some $4,000 in Tennessee
and that the lands dispute Peacher 1884,
have greatly deprecated in value.
Il also appears that Peach entered into under
his purchase and held up 1861 and
peaceaby held and occupied until his death, and that his
widow sun remains Ia the uninterrupted possession and enjoy
Under hia Of facts, Chancellor decreed
eomplainan dismissed the bin, confirmed the sale to
il in The eKecutrx aud divsee of Drane, witch Mrs
Drane appealed 10 error 70 this court
II Is clear under this Of conveyance
from A Elliott, }. H. Blair and others, executed Peter
10
well also the defendant Mary E. Ba interest the
Whatsoever may the opinion Of te heirs Of Geor
Elliott, deceased, the validity division estate
Of their ancestors and the legal receipt acqu
this proceeding under well established principles did not
dive Che title Of Mrs Haynes TO her onesixh undivided in
It equally true James Blair the father Of Sarah E.
Blair by his uniting IN the deed could daughter
Of her undivided sixth In the land lie merely BY
the courtesy, and his deed could have other effect
convey his interest as such to the purchaser.
The conveyance by Peacher TO Kesee communicated
the estate interest In the land which he deriY ed
less
Bat .. Insisted that the sale made under order
was absolutely void and communicated title whatever 70
DrAna, the purchaser at the commissioners sale.
The grounds relied for this position that Sarah
Blair was necessary party TO that suit aud being infant
any decree made 10 sell her lands absolute huly.
As general proposition that Court Of ohanoeFy
make binding decree in case unless has ursdie
defendant This principle applicable Is
well 20 al others Bat Sarah Blair par
the case Of short Co. Peaeher al We think
most clearly not That bin brought by CREDITORS seeking
teaChet
fraud, to sale Of the property conveyed sub
jet the surplus which might AFTER satisfying
debts TO the payment Of the companant demand The deed
conveyed large Of real and personal property
besides portion OF the land In dispute, having been
previously sold or No ess than ortyseven slaves with all
the bargaers stock horses mules CATTLE Sheep hogs and
farming implements every Kind and description incu
ded the deed Peacher the debtor and the complain
anti sought % subject this properly or the surplus 70 INC salts
aud clearly would hold that they had not right 60 do
Nc decree sought against either Haynes and his wife
Sarah Blair, aud thels rights remained unaffected by t.
True, they had legal interest ia portion OF the land sold,
which thy could readily aner the rendition Of the
decree con Armng the sale bef0Te.
The doctrine insisted for the defense aud found in the
OF Frazier ruos execuors etc. vs. Psnkey e. all
swan and Davidson ct a. BoWden e. AL Snnd, i29,
has application this Il does not Involve esther the
jurisdiction Of the Court Of Chancery the real estate
subject the inherent Jurisdiction OF Of equity II
such the application the doctrine OF the above
with others OF class would be applicable
and sale of niant real estate without proper
OF the person, would BE- weld.
The sale not being rs insisted utterly yod, s capable OF
confirmation, and the next question is will the confirm
minor Sarah Bls and compel The devisess OF
purchaser Drane 10 take the Aher acquired title Of Haynes
The established rule Of law s that il party fraudtdentt
convey land to which he has lille, the Vendee who
compelled sell take acquired tide Woods We
North johnson, Hum, so9 Tiackmore Shelby, HIM.
$50.
Here think there fraud either in fact or in law The
commissionss sale public Hnd the
ders Of the confirmed without objection The fact
from the Hotts ana blair to Preacher was d.f
tive does appear have been Psacher he
conveyed ia trust to Kesee; does appear was
known 20 any OF the parties the cult Co. vs.
Peseher Ct El In which te Of made How
then, could chs fact be held fraud apon the pureAser
there the sale by EXECUTOR without anything Ia
the viii from which he could infer that he any pewsf 20
70 sell without authority under che viii had te effect
70 deceive the bidder and Ne
deception was praoteed BY ia the conduct Of he sale
and Haynes and wifes title is ten
aea ana we think the purchaser, under the well established