Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-09-21
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
+ Reported for the Chronicle. by L. Till
man, Jr.1

Reported LOT the CnrOnlCles Oy H. AiiA-
/ man, Jr.l
T Note 6g husband to wJe-a0hen
valid "A note executed by a husband
O his wife during coverture in CONSUL
/ Grafton of money collected by him on
Ia cL ose in action payable to the wife,
or distributive share due her. VIII,
Upon satisfactory proof of intention,
cons titute a declaration of trust in ia
yor of the wife which equity will en-.
force, the estate being solvent and the
rights of creditors not involved.
McCampbell vs.. McCampbeli. Ex-
ecuror.-COoper, J.
fraudulent conveyance Of
proof on defendant, sOhen To bill
nleu by q pre-ex isting creditor to eel
a voluntary conveyance Of land by the
debtor to his wife, aud which alleged
that the land was all the property the
bu sbaDd then possessed, the husband
answered that be was then in good
clrcu stances, with means enough
aud more than enough to pay bis
debts. Held: That the burden was on
the defendant to- remove the presump
ton that the conveyance was fraudu-
lent as to existing creditors.
Welcker VS.. Prlce,-Cooper, J.
The District Attorney General has
no authority to purchase in the mans
of the State lands sold under execu-
| ton to satisfy judgments in favor OF
the s ate.
Littleton vs. the Stats McFar-
land, J. n
Construction of Written Contract -
A title bond, after setting forth sale
of land for a ceran price, part OF
which was paid in hard, and three
notes given on time for the balance, con-
taine d the following: land il the said
6. w. M. should fail To pay said
notes, he is not 10 lose what he has
paid, but shall receive it back without
interest" Held: That this did not
give the veadee the right to receive
and recover back the money pa d after
he had paid two of the notes aud OBJ
tanned q credit upon the third, and
after tue notes had all fallen due, he
i'll rem aiming in possession, 49,.
Marine vs. Brown. Mcfarland, ].
l. Possession of Land 1respasses-
MjunctiOa.-A party seeking 20 enjoin
tie spasses, claiming TO be III exciusive
possession of tract of land, must
occupy aud hold it bona tide. and by
such use a. is usual aud tue land sus.
ceptible of. Cisndes!inely sowing q
mustard and lettuce patch ten feet
square is not such possession. -
2. Title necessary, aohea.-Not being
10 possession, such party must show
CONNECTED chain of title in order to
sustain his prayer for an Injunction.
3. Boundary fred by long claim and
GcquleScence, Gc.-Loug claim of q
Certain line openly by party aud &C,
quiescence-in this case from % to 40
seArs-by adjoining land owners, will
Il K the boundary at the line thus prac.
ticaIiy located, and enable q party
having title to tue land thus claimed
by himself and those under whom he
nolds, to sustain bill to ebjoin tres
I passer, and protect himself from any
one not having superior title.
King vs.. Mabry and Henry.-Free,
man, j.
/. M.rri4ge contract void as to
creditors, aUyteae "A Marriage contract
not registered in a county to which
he husband removes is under act of
l831-Code 2O35- void IS to
creditors of The husband, aud gives
10 protection TO the property against
legal pl ocess on the part of such cred
itors. The contract is g cd however
between husband aud wife and the
property does not vest abs olu.e 10 him
II IL be personality. It is only not
protect Ell as against credi ors.
2 Money of aOife 10 med to husb and
can not be reached by his creditors,
aUbea.
10 be subject however to the credit
ORE, if a chose in action, the proceeds
must be reduced to possession OF the
wife, and be- so in poses sion of hus-
band, when the process attaches to or
is fastened on it. II the wife has
money in her hands, proceeds Of heI
real estate, and loans iG to firm of
which her husband is member,
taking q ote for it-sbis debt can not
be subjected to husbands creditors.
Ii is a chose in action not reduced to
possession in that form. .r..-
8 So also debt purchased by the
wife with her money, and arising
from her separate estate, is not subject
tohusband's creditors.
4. The wife held entitled to receive
proceeds of trust property conveyed
by husbands firm to secure repay
ment of money loaned 10 firm under
the facts.
Cowan. McCIung & Co. VS.. Mann,
ct aI.-Freeman, ].
Shrewsbury Us the st tie Affirmed
by judge Turney, who remark ed, that
upon the record it was difficult to see
how the jury had found Shrewsbury
guilty OF murder in the second de-
gree. He WAS clearly guilty Of MUIR