Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-17


two conveyances were made, and the mo-
tives, designs and purposes of the parties
making them, fully appear in their record.
Mrs. Williams was in sympathy with
the South and it may be by such overt
acts as she was capable of performing, a
Rebel; and was apprehensive that her
large and valuable estate would be confis-
Gated. Her son the defendant Joseph
A. Williams, professed to be loyal to the
Government Of the United States, and
seems to have been SO considered.
The witness, DR.. s. P. Crawford, who
was the family physician, and being a
lawyer, was also the legal adviser OF Mrs
Williams, states that Joseph A. Williams
paid nothing for the land, that he and
witness insisted that the conveyance
should be made; that finally Mrs. VIII
liams reluctantly made the conveyance,
with the express understanding that if
the reports about confiscation should
prove false, and the other children were
not satisfied, that re-conveyance should
be made. And it is further proved by
this witness that after the danger OF
confscation was over, and on dissatisfac-
ton being expressed, Joseph A, with
much persuasion and under threat of
litigation, was induced to re-convey the
property to his mother.
Ii is insisted in behalf of Mrs. VII
liams that the conveyance made by her
to her son is void, and this for several
reasons:
First, that at the time she made the
conveyance she was of unsound mind. 1t
is true that she was laboring under much
mental depression resulting from recent
sickness, advanced age and apprehension
Of confiscation of her property; but we
are of the opinion thatthe testimony shows
that she was fully competent to make
binding contract. Nor do we think that
there Is evidence in the record to show
that her co-defendant exercised such un-
due influence over her mind, as IN
law, to render the conveyance void.
She was under the protection of
her confidential legal and medical
adviser, who, we think, exercised
more influence over her mind in this trans
action than did the son. II is entirely
| clear to our minds that her sole object in
making this conveyance was to escape the
apprehended sweeping desolatioH OF con-
| fscation, and that but for this she would
not have made the conveyance; an appre-
| hension which at the time was not with
| out foundation; and it is equally as cleal
that the motive assigned in the recital tc
the deed was not operative on her mind
at all, as the subsequent re-conveyanct
fully proves.
| Second, That as the preamble of the
conveyance recites that she held under thu
will of her husband, and as she in fact die
not hold as the devisee of her husband
but as heir at law of her father, it Is t.
be taken she conveyed only such interes
as she held as devisee, which was nothing
If she had expressly and in terms con
yeyed such estate as was devised TO her
there would be some force in this argu
ment. But such is not the fact; and the
conveyance containing q general warranty
CT title, she is estopped from denying tn
title of the warrantee. Rawle on Gov
1914; Henderson vs.. Overton, 2 Yerg. 1913
Third, That the conveyance and tn
collateral agreement to re-convey on tn
happening of certain events, taken to
eether, constituted in law but trus
which could not be subjected to the pay
ment of the debts of the trustee. But
abundantly appears that the prime motiv
was to avoid confscation, and we do nc
think that there was any intention to crt
ate any trust as is now argued. The fs(
that the conveyance was made TO defef
the confiscation of the property is yer
far from rendering the deed void, as bt
tween the parties for obvious reasons, an
the conveyance eff April 20, 1864, operate
to vest the title in Joseph A Williams
: and the subsequent re conveyance und'
t | the facts and circumstances of this ca:
! must be held to have been made withoI
consideration, and was fIauduleI
by construction against existing creC
t itors: Smith vs.. Green, Huon. III
121; Nicholson vs.. Ward, ! Head, So
if not in fact
!. Again, whatever may have been II
private and secret agreement between II
: parties express OF implied, Mrs. William
by making this conveyance to Der so
. valid and effective on its face, and pc
u hitting the same to be registered, therel
held her son out to the world as the own
of the property, whereby he was enable
, to obtain credit.
On familiar and sound principles c
equity jurisprudence she is now estopp'
u to deny bis title and assert her own,
}; the prejudice of persons who extendt
q credit on the faith of such oWne
I ship. A party who enables another
. commit fraud is answerable for the Co
a sequences. l Story Eq., 984.
IL But it is further insisted that, as Il
conveyance of April %, 1854, was NJ
!, stamped, it is utterly void and cor
q municated no title to Joseph A. William
This is substantially deed made withoV
IS valuable consideration, and 1t was n
s. necessary that it should be stamped vii
conveyance stamps But every agre
S. ment or writing, not otherwise specifics
is liable to stamp duty of five cents
e. every piece of paper on which it is VIZ
e. ten. Now is this deed an agreement
}. contract within the meaning of this la
+ If so. what is the legal consequences v
are of the opinion, that in answer to I
Oh first question, we must hold that the
8. strument IS an agreement, or contr'
within the meaning of the act OF %
s. gress. But in view of the fact which
iudicially know and which also appe'
ed in proof, that the revenue law OF
I.United States, by reason of the militS
force of the Confederate States, were
ry cluded from enforcement at the time
OF place when and where the said contr
an was made, and that it was imp
" sible to comply with the law req1
mt ing such instruments to be stamped,
Ter cannot hold even if the assumpt
as contained in the proposition OF the
co PENDANT be well founded, that the fail
TO to the deed so affected its validity a
rs, imminent of title that it vested no est
he in Joseph A. Williams. On the contra
we think that the circumstances exc
10 the failure to comply with the requl
M ments of the law, which by reason o
nd permanent force hostile to its operatl
zee and maintaining in fact another and
cal ferent system of taxation could not I
ssibly have been executed, or even s.
IN mitted to, by the most willing and 10,
in Such holding would carry havoc
on ruin into the contracts and titles OF TIVE
he millions of people made and acqui
A. during a period of four years. Aft
DIN the decree.
ms JAMES T. SHIELDS, Special Judge
A true copy.
tn Test: ]. F. DEADRRIoK, Clerk.
ler : Note-See Sporrer VS.. Eitier. Post
i'm
in TENNESSEE.
,co OCr.rA