Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-10-12
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
T Reported for the Chronicle, by L. Till
man, Jr.

| man, Jr.
Partaership-CTeditors right to pur-
sue ossetS-rhe creditors Of firm
have the right to follow the firm
assets into land bought with the pur-
chase money of other land in which
the assets were first invested, and the
partner making the investment can
lot claim q homestead exemption In
each land as sgainst the firm creditors.
Chalfant, Cox & Co., vs. Grant and
others.
Pleadmg before Jatstice-Pled IN
A6atement.-To an action of replevin
for a chattel before Justice, the de-
fence that the Justice has no jurisdic-
ton because the chattel was in the
possession of one of the defendants as
an officer by virtue OF the levy of an
attachment from the Chancery Court,
sued out by the other defendant, is
pIea in abatement which must be in
writing under the Code, S2901.
| Crutchfield & Knox VS.. Durando.
| l. Ececutors-P Personal liability of
-aVhen.-A promissory note, by which
the makers, executors OF a person
named, promise as such executors, to
nav the amount called for, is bindIng
on the makers pers rsonally, although
their official designation be added to
the signature Of each maker.
East Tenn. Iron Manufacturing
Company Va GasklIl.
2 Pleas-In1Daateri0I-HOW treated.
TO a declaration on a note against
executors, seeking to hold them per-
sonally liable, pleas which set up de-
fences to a suit against them in their
representative character, are inmate
rial. and may be stricken out on mo-
| tiou. or treated as immateriai OF the
trial although Issue be Joined on them.
Idem.
8. Verdict on in1naateriol pleo-Ef
feetof "A verdict In favor of the plain
tiff on an immaterisl plea entities the
plaintiff to judgment.
Idem.
4 Statute of Limitation - When run
ring Where the note sued on fell due
after the 9Th of May, 1861, but before
the suspension of the statute of limi-
tations in 1866, the time which elapsed
after it's maturity until the passage of
the act of suspension, beiUg less than
J the period of Limitation for the partic-
ular cause of action, can not be added
tn the time after the lst OF January,
1857, when the statute again began to
run until suit brought to complete the
bar.
Idem.
S. It ia no defence to an action by a
corporation on note made payable to
1t, that the charter of the corporation
fails to define the period of is duration
Idem.
1. mancery jurisdiction, to PREF en-!
sacrifice Of property.-EquiIy has
| Jurisdiction to aid judgment ere dit II
, in removing embarrassments the
way Of sale so AS t. prevent sscri ce
of the property, either by SUI en- lung
the sale until the obstacle is em we'd,
or selling the entire property an dis
posit e of the proceeds OF sale among
the parties entitled.
. Kerr, ex'r, vs. Kerr g. Humbard.
2. In this Sta'e the presumption is
in favor of. rather than against, the
! plPsder on motion to dismiss.
Idem.
Execution from Justice Supersede
Upon the supersedeas OF Justices
execution to quash a levy on exempt
property, the defense was that the
3 debtor had given the creditor lien on
the property by the note on @hich
the iudgmeIt was rendered, where
upon the debtor filed an amended
petil ion, alleging that the provision ot
the note giving a lien was inserted by
l the creditor without his knowledge
1 Held: That the whole litigation
| /, I'D ~, fCr . b
: creditor was given his election tC
{ withdraw all objection to the jurisdic
j. ton of the court of law, over the mat
+ ter of the amended petiuOB, or tt
have the levy quashed without preiu
dice TO his rem dy in equity.
: Mynatt vs. Magill.
;. Vendors lien IA favor of third p rty
4 "A third pe rson to whom a portion o
g the purchase money of land is, by th'
q terms of the grantor's deed, to be pait
6 by the vendee has, in the absence o
an express reservation Of lien, th'
n vendors lien or equity on the land fo
8 the payment of the money, bat th,
!, lien will be barred by the continuoul
- possession of the land by the veDde
J.. for seven years from the maturity G
- the debt.
L
County Court, not lie bic for not taeisas
Revenue Collectors bond The statut
= does not impose upon the Justices, o
County Court, the duly of compelling
the Revenue Collector 10 ex ecute bond
aud they are not personally liable fo
failure to take proper DDnd at tn
proper time; but the officer falling t.
file his bond in the tune prescribe'
q by law vaca:es hisoffice, and if he pei
/, forms any ctfi ial act after sucl
=, failure, he subj cts himself to Grim
, iHal prosecution.
The State W. David Goddard an
;" others.
B sturdy = Conflicting evidence
d In bastardy case the only evideDc
d submitted to he jury wac the directl
"a conflicting sff1davits of the mother t
the child and the party accused-th
jury found against defendant; judg
ment affirmed, but with don't
whether upon the record the truth {
- the case is nit.
p Hall In error VS. The State.
~ S me-CiviI case-Rule So to ReverSa
st -Bastardy cases though brought j
the rame of the State, are in fact suii
to recover a sum of money fixed b
i. statute; and the rule laid down in civ
20 cases that ihis court will not reverse
there is sufficient evidence to sustai
u the verdict will be followed IN ca es