Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1880-10-26
COURT OPINIONS:
AT Knoxville, OCTOBER 2sd, 1880.

1afOL dA OIOOF ATdNu UH tIS SCHOCi AOiAA-
missioners on the county trustee for SER |
vices actually rendered under a void con- |
tract, is entitled to have the same paid by |
the trustee out of any monies in his hands |
when the order is presented belonging 10 |
the school district, or the first monies |
which may come to his hands thereafter, |
whether The money be sreceived on the ap- |
pOrtlonment for the year in which the ser |
vices were rendered, or any subsequ ntyear, |
and the trustee is personally Ii abie TO the
holder of the order { n the amount called |
for if he rails to pay it in the order OF its
presentation. The hol Ter of the order Is
not required to resort to a nandamus,-
Cooper, J.-Bayless VS.. Driskell.
Statute Of limitations Title perfected by,
when.
l. In an action of ejectmentr the plain
tiff claimed, under grant obtained in 1881,
the defendants land under an entry made
in 1856 and grant thereon issued in 1913,
and continuous adverse possession OF por-
tions of the land within the entry and
! grant. There was evidence tending to show
| that the person making the entry in 1886
| had, at the time, under enclosure portions
| Of the lands under entries made previous
to 1881, the boundaries of which, if ever
surveyed, were abandoned after the entrv
of 1886, which included them all, and
could not, in single instance, be identi.
| fed at the trial. The enclosures of the de-
PENDANTS had been largely extended since
1881, and since the entry in 1886 and the
grant in 1848. Held, that the title of the
defendat is had been perfected by the stat
ute of limitations to the extent OF the
4.OO0 acre grant and survey.-Cooper, j.
Peck VS.. Houston.
Interlap-Doctrine of-No foundation for,
| when.
z. Chera is no foundation laid for the
doctrine of Interlap ia the case of cOnhlct-
ing gr ants, where the possession set up by
one of the parties is a possession of adJa-
ja eut lanos Of that party included IN q
different grant from the one relied on in
the suit -Idem.
Revenue collector Sureties, rights of.
l, The sureties of revenue C Hector of
county taxes for the last two years of the
SIX years during which he continued IN
office are entitled to perpetually eDJoln suits
commenced against them and their prInci~
pal, by mot. on; o. the official bonds Of the
principal, upon proof that the axes for the
collection of which they were liable have
been paid to the county, although their
principal may be largely IN default to the
county for other years, and they may
recover from the county any pay
menLs, which have not been re-
imbursed to them, out OF the taxes made
by them under a mistaken impression su>
perioduced by the county that they were
liable to the county in a much larger
amount.-Cooper, J.-COX VS.. Hill.
Same-Same.
z Such sureties are not entitled to recov-
er from the county, as oVerpsymants on
the taxes of the two years for when they
were bound, money paid to the county by
their principal either out OF the taxes col
lected by him, or out Of his own means, on
his running account with the county 1oi
, the entire period of his official service
Idem.
Same-SAme.
8. Nor are they entitled to recover from
the county, ss the suretes of Their pr'ncl
pal, for the collection of state
taxes during the same twl
wears, payments alleged 10 have beer
! made to the county by their principal ou
of the state taxes collected by him, tbs
= county not being shown to have had any
+ knowledge of the source of such payments
. and the evidence falling to show any de
: finite sum thus paid.-Idem.
Executors, judgment pro confesso, effect Of
The executors failed TO answer and an OF
der pro co fesso was taken against then
and no proof taken. Held, that the tas
stood as on an issue between the parties
and the complainant not having made hi
a case must fail. See sec. 47l-2 CODE
Freeman, J.-Scruggs VS.. DAW-on'
Revivor.
? When land is N controversy and 1t ap
t pears that the administrator of the respond
\ eut appeared in the court below, and tn
:, heirs not parties, and the suit has neve
q been revived against them. Held, that tn
q cause must be reversed and remanded 10
9 revivor against the heirs.-Freeman, j.
- Denton VS.. Wood.
Z Will-Church-Not competent TO TAX
where
e 1t is my desire and will that the dwell
/. ing house and.lot, with its appurtenance
- and fixtures, in johnson City shall be use
by my wife during her natural life
and at her death descend to the Christai
church, as parsonage or ministerial hous
for said denomination of Christians
together with my library and stocks, ct
Y Held, that as the church was not inCOrpl
g rated the demise gift is void, the ehurc
having no capacity TO take. e.-Freeman, j.
. Reeves vs.. Reeves.
?, Turney dissented as to the parsonage.
:, Same-Same-Com to tax e, where.
: 1t is my will and l SO provide tbs
!. one of my lJts southeast of Main street, i
. johnson City with front of 80 feet and
q depth of 80 feet be setapart as site for
IS Christian church. Held, that this wOul
vest the church with the title for devo
tional purposes. under sec. 1,t08 of tn
code.-Idem.
). Arbitration -Mistake-Power of suprem
a court.
a An aFUltF aLlOu court lelb out some SeCuI
II tiles through mistake Held, that tn
Le court will amend their judgment so as t
o. include them. - Nj Fariand, J.---CamE
bell VS.. Campbell.
Special tax-How authorized.
s, The town of SevierVille levied a speci,
\ tax for school purposes of $75 On the bus
y ness of retailing liquors for the year 1877
Held, that the mayor and aldermen have L
T ght 10 Impose such tax without two-thirC
- of the legal voters Of such 11Tporation al
thorizing it-Mc cFarland, J.-Mitchell V
E Fox.
a. Justices judgment-Bears six per cen
h when.
- " hen justice Of the peace rende
he judgment on an instrument bearing 10 pc
Ut cent. interest," and in said decree does n
: = recite any rate of interest. Held, that und'
- section 1,945 8 of the code the judgmel
10 would only bear six per cent. notWitl
Ii standing the justice under the statu
~ should have made the ju gment bear Il
y ssme rate of interest ss the instrument
10 Mcfarland, J.-Ramsey vs.. Jones.
"a. Will-Construction
~ Il will, after ascertaining the who
"a amount of money to be distributed, accor
ee ing TO item of this win, there be enoue
oil taken from the same to make Sarah Al
Webb, the youngest heir of j. G.. Web
equal heir with the heirs of Lucinda Nj
Mahan. in my estate" Held, that this on
gave share equal to each one of said chi
4. dren. J.-W ebb vs.. Webb.
r. Teacher of public schools, power to su!
- pend-Directors must dismiss.
u A teacher of a pu bile school, while