Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-29

bell;-atfirmed. Downing VS.. Clifte 4
Hughes;-decree reversed and bill dismiss
ed. Young vs.. State;-affirmed. jackson
VS.. Lillard, q cases);-afirmed. Furmal
81 Co., VS.. Douglas;-reVersed and remand
Cd.
By Freeman Gates vs.. Kfttrell;-af
firmed. Swanson g. Gray VS.. darlington
reversed and decree here. Williams VS.
Gldeon;-afirmed.
By Nicholson, Judge. Mccain V.
Carr affirmed. Wilson vs. Wilson; affirm
ed. Dougherty VS. Rucker; appeal dismiss
ed. Andrews VS. Crenshaw, motion to dis
miss injunction disallowed. Nashville anC
Chattanooga Railroad Company vs. Estes 6
Co; reversed and remanded. State of Ten
nessee vs. Ward & Briggs; decree reversed
and remanded.
DECISIONS.
vs.. st. John, ordered that the
Clerk of the Court below be allowed no fee
because of the record being made out SC
badly by him.
GO0dlow vs.. Guthrie, in this case, par
ties referred a suit before Justice of the
Peace to arbitrator, reserving the right to
make the award the judgment of the Jus.
tice of the Peace, and to appeal. Judgment
was entered on the award, and an appeal
taken to the Circuit Court, which dismissed
said appeal for want of jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court reversed the judgment OF
| the Circuit Court and remanded the cause
for further proceedings.
| Pillow VS.. Nashville and Decatur Rail-
road Company. This was a suit for dam
ages sustained by the loss of furniture
while in transitu on said road. Pillow had
| agreed with the agent of the road, which at
! that time was in the hands of and control
| led by the Confederate military authorities,
| to carry his furniture upon the road. The
military orders at the time forbid that any,
| thing except provisions and public property
| should be carried on the rOad the furni-
ture beyond any question of proof, sustain
ed serious and material damage. Held
without reference to the charge of the
court below that the facts would not sup
port judgment against the railroad COM
pany.
Seat vs. Crosby. This was a motion
against a sheriff for failing to return an ex-
ecution for $1,000, issued upon decree
which did not fix any amount at all; held
that the execution was void and that no
motion would lie upon it.
Turner VS. Harland; Mcfarland, Judge,
delivering the opinion. After al attach
ment and injunction prohibiting any sale, a
deed was made in violation of the iniunc-
ton, held that as to persons not parties to
the injunction and attachment suit,the deed
was not void.
Morris vs. Swaney, Derderick, Judge, de-
livering the opinion. The court held that
evidence of parties who could nst read, but
who had heard a will read
is admissible to prove the making of lost
will.
Jackson VS.. Carter. Held that SUBJ
stantial defect in an affidavit for an attach
ment was not amenable.
Swanson VS.. Harrington. Freeman J.
Held that beneficiary under deed of
trust who had filed a bill 10 have the prop
erty sold under the deed was estopped from
making any attack upon the dispositions of
the property made by the deed.
Williams vs. Gideon. Held that, one of
several benefciaries under a trust deed
who redeems the trust property after
sale Of it under an execution,
having priority to the deed of trust will be
treated in equity as having purchased for
the benefit of his co-benefciaries.
Andrews vs.. Crenshaw-a decree was
rendered by this (the Supreme) Court at
former session, to sell tract of land An
injunction issued from the Chancery Court
prohibiting the parties from proceedingwi
the sale. A motion was made to direct the
injunction to be disregarded, without pro-
ducing the injunction or a copy of the bill.
The Court refused to allow the motion.
Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad
Company vs.. Estes ct 9l. This was a suit
against the above Railroad Company
for the value of whisky DESTROYED
while in the company's possession for trans
pOrtatiOn as common carriers. The pro-
perty was destroyed by the retreating Con-
federate army, and ii was held by the court
if the whisky was destroyed by the Con-
federates TO prevent the generalization of
their own forces by the use of the spirits,
or to prevent the disaster incident to its
falling into the hands of the Federal sol
diers that such destruction being for public
necessity, was rightful and the owners
could not recover of the railroad company.
State of Tennessee and G.. W. Black
bum vs. Ward and Briggs.
The Supreme court yesterday in an able
and elaborate opinion, by Judge Nicholson,
settled the principles involved in the above
case affirming in toto the decision of Chan
NCAOi Nlldos W. OllllbLig hClNClCu III Ill6
Chancery court here June 80, 1871, and
which has been already published in this
paper. We will therefore present only such
points as give the the principal phases set
tied by the court. Under an
act Of the General Assembly of
this State passed May u, 1860
the Penitentiary was leased to Ward d
Briggs. On the 22d of June, 1867, part
of the Penitentiary was, with machinery
and stock, destroyed by fire, for which the
lessees claimed damages to the amount of
S44, S47.40. The lessees ceased after this
fire to make payments under their lease.
In said contract occurs the following pro-
visions: The convicts ''are to be kept
under strict discipline" "The Directors
or Warden are to furnish a guard for
each workshop, day and night
and see that they faithfully per-
form their duty, and select such guards
as are acceptable to the lessees.
The lessees, with the consent of the direc-
tors, may impose tasks upon the convicts,
and pay the directors, for the benefit of the
convicts, such price as may be agreed upon
for over work, if any," Under these pro-
visions of the contract, the claim for dam
ages was made the basis, insisting that the
ure was caused Dy neglect OF SalQ require
ments, and that the State was responsible
for the damage.
Suit being instituted in accordance with
an act of the Legislature, the lessees on the
8th of January, 1869, made a written pro-
position to the Legislature for a surrender
of their lease, whereupon the Legislature
by resolution (No. so, page 400 Acts 1868 |
81 instructed the Attorney General to post
pOne further action in said suit, upon the |
lessees agreeing in writing to submit to an
arbitration to be established by the ap-
pointment of an arbiter by the Governor;
one arbiter to be appointed by said lessees,
both of whom shall be learned in |
the laws, and tee two so appointed |
shall select an umpire to settle any ques-
ton of disagreement, and the Board thus |
formed shall examine and determine be- |
tween the parties, and their decision shall |
be accepted as a final settlement of the |
matters between the State and the lessees |
of the penitentiary." This was consented |
to and the lease accepted by the Legisla- |
ture. The arbiters failing to agree, an UNI
pire was called in, Ward & Briggs |
were allowed for the less of the fire
in consequence, as they alleged, of the State |