Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-09-14
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
T Reported for the Chronicle, by L. Till.
.1hsAk man, Jr. &Te! sso &

- @EBl3 sas - 80 1EeEa t
Reported for the Chronicle, by L. Till
<hss man, Jr. ses s@o see
ad-Abdndonment. Three
years. absence of husband and wife
from the homestead, with facts show
ing that the husbands absence was
intended to be permanent, and that
the wife had no intention of returning
at q certain period, but only contin,
gent intention, works an abandonment
and opens the property to attack of
creditors.
Roach vs. Hacker-Cooner, J.
lNote.-In this case it appeared that
no new homestead had been acquired I
l. Fraudulent Conueyaace-Bill 10
set aside by creditor of deceased debtor,
will lie before judgment.
A creditor of q deceased debtor may
file bill against fraudulent grantee
of the latter to reach the property con-
yeyed without first obtaining q iudg-
ment on his debt or proceeding against
the property of the estate.
2. Plea of Statute OF I'm ion-bad
sOben. To such bill plea by the
fraudulent grantee that the creditor
had not brought an action on his de-
mand within two years and six
months from the qualification of the
personal representative, is no defense,
Armstrong, admir- VS.. Croft ct al
Cooper, j.
l. Concurrent fadiag of Master and
bancelLoT not dte;er6ed. aVhe2a. Where
the Master and the Chancellor have
reached the same conclusion upon the
facts, this Court will not interfere un-
less there is clear preponderance of
evidence against the findings.
2. Contract W.ten ordt. A contract
partly in writing and partly oral is an
oral contract.
Turley vs.. Cooler-Cooper, J.
Redemption - When ALLOWED dc
cident. Ii a party tan execution
debtor or his agent) has been misled by
the false return OF the Sheriff as to the
tine when the Fight to redeem ex-
pired, and he, accordingly, fail to ten
der the redemption money until the
expiration of the time, he will. never
theless, in equity, be permitted to re
deem-relief being granted as against
an accident-even though the pur-
chaser was at no fault.
Alexander s.Turley & Bailey-Free.
man, j.
Deed-DeiUery- What is. A delv-
cry of deed does not necessarily con-
sist in the actual manual transfer of
the paper from the one party to the
other, but the delivery will be regard
ed as complete If all the circumstances
indicate that it was the intention of
the parties that the deed should lake
immediate effect although the custody
remain with the granter.
Ledgerwood VS.. Gault - McFar-
land T.
l. FIRST Eadoraer.- Contribution, =
Second EadorSer.-A first endorser
who has paid the bill or note Of the
principal can not have contribution
| from a .econd endorser, upon the
ground that both endorsers supposed
| themselves equally liable. Their ig-
| norance of the law does not change
| their legal rights or liability.
2. Proof Oaus.-Before contribution
| could be had in such case it must be
| shown that the endorsements were
made upon o. CONTRACT for joint liabii-
| ity, and whoever asserts such outside
contract must prove 1T. B@5 s. &@
Wallace VS.. Wood.-McFarian d, J.
! [Query Would it be competent 10
any such case to show an outside con
tract?I s-sE
Pleadin9-A dmissions-Ifau answer
contain a simple denial of an allega>
ton, the onus is thrown upon COM
plainant to prove the allegation, but
if the answer go further, the complain
ant is entitled to the benefit of all
admissions. and while in the present
attitude, he must take the history of
the ira nsaction to be as stated in the
answer, yet he is at liberty to draw
| any legitimate inference from those
statements, even though they establish
the existence of fraud in the face OF
| the general denials of the answer.
Yost We. Hudiburg.- J.