Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-07-13
BIG PLANTATION CASE.

BIG PLANTATION CASE.
In the Gaze of Mary z. Pickett Is. Fergu-
son Il Hsmpson, Judge Ellet yesterday de-
livered an opinion, which was substantially
as follows: The Court ia satisfied from the
testimony that the purchase of the Nodena
plantation by the defendant Hanauer, on
the 18th OF February, 1879, must be re-
gsrded as purchase by Ferguson q Hsmp-
son, as much as If they had bought at the
sale in their own names and on their own
bid. The regular attorney-stlaw of Fer
guson & Hampsou, who had never before
been retained by Hsnauer, was employed TO
attend the sale and make the purchase.
They furnished the money to make the cash
payment. Hansuer did not require that he
should be put in possession by the commits
sioner. 1t does not appear that he ever ex-
srcised any act of ownership control over
he property, or ever set up any claim of
ownership or control, except that on the 18th
of March, 1880, he executed deed of release
and quittance TO Ferguson Hampsc n
without any covenants OF warranty.
Ferguson & Hampson acted exactly as il
they had purch ased, and began costly i'm
provements. The question then comes up
whether tenant purchasing his landlords
title at judicial sale during the continuance
of the lease can hold the property against
bill in equity by the landlor! to redeem.
Has the landlord the right in equity to re-
deem? The court assumes that the covenant
for quiet enjoyment is 10 be inferred from
the lease. The authorities appear to be con- |
elusive in favor of the right of the landlord |
to redeem under the circumstances of the |
case. 1t is insisted, however, as a bar to any |
decree for complainant in this aspect OF the |
case that she is estopped by her conduct at |
the sale from setting up any rights as land |
lord. The court IS OF opinion that she is |
not estopped. The question to whether |
the court has the local jurisdiction OF the |
cause is decided affrmatively. 1t is insisted |
that this court will not grant a decree in |
favor oil the complainant, because 1t will |
have no power to enforce 1t against the de- |
PENDANT Ferguson, who is a nonresident, and |
because the courts of Arkansas will not lend |
their aid in the enforcement of decree OBJ
tanned against one of her citizens without |
personal service of process; but the rule of |
equity Jurisdiction 10 enforce contracts and |
equities respecting lands lying beyond its |
jurisdiction is recognized. II appears that |
Ferguson has valuable interests in this State,
and that he has abstained from coming here
for the purpose of avoiding personal service
of process in this suit. 1t will be time
enough to determine whether the decree can
be enforced against him when the necessity
TO do so shall arise. Similar questions might |
have arisen il the suit had been brought in
Arkansas. This court, at all events, has
power TO enforce its decree against defend
ants, Hampsou and Hanauer. The court
does not concur in the opinion that the legal
effect of the sale of February IS, 1879, was
the eviction OF Ferguson d Hampson
from the property. For this purpose an ac-
count must be taken in which the complain
ant will be charged with such permanent
and other valuable improvements as were
made by the defendant after February
%, 1879. This is not 10 embrace
he clearing of the land or fencing, which
are provided for by special stipulation in the
original lease. Complainant will be credited
With the amounts due for rent under the
ease of November u, 1877, and also with
insurance money collected by the defendants
and due to her, with interest on these sums
rom the times when they severally became
payable. Whatever balance may be found
iue must be paid by complainant into court,
md upon payment OF the same she will be
entitled 10 a decree for reconvey ance of
he property to her by the said Ferguson and
IampsoD, individually, as members of the
irm. The mortgage given by Ferguson 81
i Hampton to Hanauer cannot stand in The
way of the REDEEM ption OF the property by the
This decree proceeds on the
heory that he acted for the other defendants
n making the purchase, and that he adj
anced the money tor them. He will be re-
uired to join in the convey nce to COM
Iainant or to release said mortgage by a
eparate release But he will be entitled to
e reimbursed the amount due on his mort
age out of the amount that may be found
ne BY complainant on the account, if there
hall be sufficient for that purpose.
WATER COMPANY CASE.
Another important decision was rendered
n the Chancery Court by Judge Mcdowell,
n the case of the Memphis Water Company
s. j. o. Pierce. This case involved the
uestion whether the new Water Comp any is
esponsible for the debts of the old. Several
hundred thousand dollars is involved in this
ssue. Judge Mcdowell decides the COM
claimants property levied upon BY J. o.
Fierce to satisfy a judgment and execution,
xecution and the complainant is not SO
liable; and the injunction no AIDE in the cause.
tho sale OF compliments prop
rty is made perpetual