Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-05-28
INrERESrING pECIsIOs.
raz.rl'ls SSsss..a. settled b,

Judge HeiskelI.
Yesterday Judge Heiskell Of the Cir
cult Court disposed Of the case Of Sap
pington vs.. Epps. The plaintiff claimet
a title to two lots Of. ground in Fer
Pickering, Nos. 10 and 20, in block 40
The property belonged to the late Edwin
Hickman, formerly mayor. etc. Thu
grant issued originally to David Ramsay
The land was decided in 1869 by Edwin
Hickman to Mrs. Sappington, who was
his niece. Edwin Hickman died in
Texas in 1870. The land was ssld ia
1873 for taxes by the corporate authori
ties Of the city Of Memphis, bought by
the city, and afterwards conveyed for
mere taxes, costs, etc., to Epps. The
plaintiff derived his title from North
Carolina, and showed hat Hickman had
held possession Of the land sometime be
fore the war; was, in short, in possession
for more than twenty-five years. The
defendant claimed that the deed to
Mrs. Sappington was a forgery, aud in
troduced several well known citizens who
stated that while they could not positive.
ly swear that the signature was not that OF
Edwin Hickman, they thought it was
better written than he was accustomed
to write, saying that for many years he
was very nervous, and that the hand.
writing did not look like his. So thought
Mr.. Sam Mosby, Mr.. Chiles, Colonel
TrezevaHt aud Mr.. |. n. Hill. On the
other hand. William b. Waldran thought
the signature was Mr.. Hickman'ss and
so thought Mr.. A. j. White, the latter
saying that lie knew the signature as he
would know Mr.. Hiekmsn's face. Mr..
Samuels, Mr.. Davis and Mr.. f. W. Roy,
ster were satisfied that tie signature was
Mr.. Hickman's.
Plaintiff counsel contended that the
weight of evidence showed that the Gig.
nature OF Hickman to the deed was genu-
inc, while denying that it could be at.
in this way. They insisted that
was regularly probated before two
notaries public in Texas, according to
the terms OF our statute; that the notary
fulfilled the same duties in this regard
the clerk Of the Couaty Court,
and the deed being admitted to
registration, it became a record, and
could not be attacked except by a bill
filed. for that purpose. AS to defend
ants'deed, they contended hat it was
void Tor three reasons: First-The col.
deed did not recite that the lots
were sold on the day advertised Sec
ond-Thst it did not recite the fact that
a portion of each lot was first offered for
sale, so as TO pay taxes as provided by
the corporate law, but the whole was sold
at ono and struck off to the city. Third
That while the lots we're separately as
sessed they we're sold as one tract Of
lsnd, any one, of which was sufficient to
invalidGte The deed.
Judge Heiskell thought. and so ruled,
that the plaintiff had made out his title,
and hat defendants deed was void on
its face; that while there was proofthrow
ing doubt upon the signature Of Edwin
hickman to the deed, stronger proof was
sdduced by plaintiff sustaining it, and,
especially that Of the two subscribing
witnesses; and 10 such proceeding the
proof would not warrant him 10 finding
for defendant. He thought the weight
Of proof was with the plaintiff, and &C
cordingly would give him judgmest, pre-
territting the other question raised by
that Of attacking the signature
Of Hickman as a forgery, as the case
could be decided without that.
Mr.. Sneed and Mr.. W. S. Flippin APP.
for the plaintiff, and NJ. d. WEIGH
for the defendant.