Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-10-30

4 y
Points Of Interest Ruled and Adju
dictated.
From Knoxville exchange we pub lish
the following:
| Within week past two decisions have
been pronounced by the Supreme Court in
regard to the rights of Presbyterian Church
property in East Tennessee, one affecting
the "Mars Hill Church." at Athens, and
the other the "Presbyterian Church" at
Jonesboro.
The decision of the case in regard to
Mars Hill Church is upon bill and answer
and proof and is therefore final as affecting
| it. The lot wherein the church was built
was by the grant or dedicated in trust for
the use and benefit of'tMars Hill Church"
The possession was usurped, in 1866. by
minority of the members Of that congrega.
ton and the majority excluded for alleged
political heterodoxy. The bill was brought
by them to assert their right in the proper
ty. The Court, Judge Turney delivering
the opinion, grant them the relief prayed for,
declaring that "the personal and property
| rights of churches aud their members are
civil and Of them the Courts Of the State
have exclusive Jurisdictions. Ecelesiasti-
cal Courts have no jurisdiction to decide
the rights Of property and enforce protec
tion.n
The decision is to the effect that the in
tention Of the grsntor, sscertained by the
rules of legal construction must be carried
into effect by the civil Courts, and, as a
consequence, the property must be used
for the benefit Of the Presbyterian congrs-
CATION or members of the Presbyterian
Church at Athens, and that the organized
body Of Christian believers and worship
ers have now, and, ever since their organi-
zation and the execution of the deed, have
had the right to the possession. The law
will continue the property in the mem
bers of the religious body designated in the
deed, unaffected by its transfer from one
jurisdiction to another IN church govern
ment, unless the Church, as such, sees fit
to dispose of it under the provisions of the
deed, and as authorized by its constitutions
and laws.
The other cause was determined upon
the bill and demurrer and is not FINAL dis
position of the cause. The opinion of the
Court in this case, delivered by Judge
Freeman, contains declaration substan-
TALLY of the same principles. Both judges
express the sincere regret Of the members
Of the court that they are called upon to de-
termine controversies between professed
disciples of Him who came to bring peace
and good will toward men, who made
charity the basis of all human action, and
love to each other the touchstone Of dis
cipleship. At the same time they express
he opinion that the law is well settled that
the courts of justice will as jealously guard
and protect the property rights Of church
members and churches, as those of any
other classes of persons or organizations"
Squib vs. Mcfarland admr-a writ of
error sued out in the name of party de-
ceased after final judgment or decree is
void and cannot be revived in the name of
an administrator subsequently appointed.
Kincaid vs. Thomas-evidence VII not be
heard on behalf of party to disprove or
contradict facts alleged by him in pleading.
N. & c. r. r. Co. vs. Stoek&rt-A railroad
company receiving for shipment, packages
marked or directed to point beyond the
terminus of its road, but on some other
line of road, is, by the law governing COM
mon carriers, under implied contract to de- |
liver them at that point.
n. & G. r. r. Co. vs. Kouk-A notice of |
defense under the general issue, though |
defective, if it indicate valid legal defense,
cannot be stricken out on trial or "charged |
out" by the court, if the parties have eho- |
sen to go to trial on it.
Fort vs. Coker-The repleyin bond of |
principal in attachment cases executed by |
an unauthorized agent or attorney and sub |
sequentiy ratified by the principal, will be |
binding upon him. If the principal would |
avoid liability he must disavoW the act in |
the proper legal manner as soon as it comes |
to his knowledge. And no ratification can |
be made upon the condition that he will |
not lose or suffer by 1.-THE condition will !
be void and such ratification absolute.
Beatty vs. McCorkle-The deposition
a party taken in the lifetime Of the oppo |
site party, but not offered till after his death
and the qualification OF his personal repre-
sentative, is not competent testimony.
FaTer VS. Walker-It is error to dismiss |
on motion apetitiOu for certiorGri to quash |
an execution on account of satisfaction of |
the same, because the debtor failed to sp- |
peal from the judgment Of the justice |
against garnishee on the execution.
Pickett VS. Hudson-Equity will enter |
tain jurisdiction of bill for an account, |
even where the law could give redress.
w. & A. Z. r. Co. vs. Hurst-Citizens, |
subordinate military officers and soldiers |
are protected from civil liability on account |
Of torts committed by them under peremp- |
tory orders of military commander in time |
of war.
Love rs State--The fact that the differ |
ent jurors in felony case were scattered |
along in squads on public street, over q
space of thirty yards long, and the officer |
standing with bis back to them, at dis
lance of ten or fifteen yards, while some |
one passing talked TO a squad OF the jurors, |
will be sufficient ground for a new trial, |
though the person who was talking to them,
and the jurors, make affidavit that nothing |
was SAID TO them about the case.
Brandon VS. CrOuch-No appeal viii lie, |
even in the discretion of the Chancellor, |
ftom decree setting aside an award made |
on submission of the case to arbitrators /
and ordering an account according to the |
payer Of the bill and assent of the defendant |
thereto in bis answer.
Taylor VS. Mayhem, adm'r-Debts con-
tracted in Georgia before the new Constitu-
ton, are not rendered invalid by any of its
provisions.
Specific objection must be taken 10 parts
of deposition which An incompetent or If
relevant, or they will not benoticed in this
court, but general objection will reach the
competency of the witness.
E. t., Va. & Ga. r. r. Co., vs. State
This company is only under obligation by
terms of its charter, to make crossings for
such roads or streets as it crossed at the
time of its construction. 1t cannot be held
to provide for crossings for new streets and
roads opened since that time.
Pickett, Judge, etc, vs. Bean-It Is the
duty Of the inducing officer to refuse in-
duction and qualification to any officer
elect, who is a defaulIer, whether the fact
of defalcation has been ascertained by judy !
ment or not.
WILLIAM LEWIS, farmer near India