Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-10-08
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

rRaported for the CHRONICLE by A. S.
Prosser, September Term, 1882.
The owners of the charter and stock of a
State bank, men of good character, and hav
inc the confidence of the community, pub
Tsbe6 in the newspapers of the city in
which the bank was located, a business card
If the bank with their own names as officers,
and With the name of one of themselves as
director, and the names of four other per
sons ~ directors, who were not stockholders,
VINO lad never been notified that they were
elected directors, nor accepted the office MOI
acted As such, and continued the pubEca-
ton FOR over four years, with the knowledge
of such persons, but without their active
partiGipation Held-the bank having fail
ed hat the creditors had no right of action,
either through or independent of the cor
porauOn against such person for falling to
discharge the duties of directors, it not APP
pcarng that they or either of them, had
done or said anything tending to lead any of
the creditors to believe that they were di-
reetors. Humes VS.. Commercial Bank ct
al Opinion by Cooper Chief Justice
Deadriak and Judge Freeman dissent.
A party who accepts a deed without suf-
6cien. covenants for his security, and there
be nc elements of fraud, mistake or other
eoui:v in the transaction, takes his title at
his own risk. and is without remedy, either
at law or in equity The rule is well set
tied and is presumed to be known to any
purchaser of real estate, that in the absence
Of fraud his only indemnity, in case of
failure of title depends on the covenants in
his deed" Prigmore VS.. Shelton. Free
man i.
J. bill, of a Judgment creditor who
seeks % hold the property of an insolvent
bank corporation, that was conveyed to a
stakeholder, who under the charter is liza
bic for It's debts, and who had paid some of
its banks depositors, and seeks to remove
cloud rom title, and to set aside a deed in
trls; made by the stakeholder to secure his
individual liabilities; and makes all these
parties defendants, is not muItifarious.
Baxter, Gle; ibid 1888. (AIilhgan's) Dig
p 6e7S, Code, 5 1927; Story, Ch'y pl,
, When two bills are filed, one a credi
tors bill and the other not, but the causes
are consolidated a recovery on the latter
bill WI. inure to the benefit of all the cred
Itors
g. 4 deed which fixes no time within
which the property shall be sold and the
trust closed, and the trustee Is authorized tt
rent until a sale is made, which may
be OF a credit or for cash; and t
compromise or arbitrate any matter
IN litigation that may arts
IN the execution Of the trust, and do al
other proper and necessary acts as fully a
the crantor could do-Held; the trustee
nay lie invested with such power, especial
when !, appears that the property conveye
is inadequate to satisfy the preferred debts
a. Il Is not a fatal objection that the dee,
fails q state the amount of the preferre
debts, where the names of the preferre
creditors are given, and the debts are evi
deIgsG by notes or bills. This case distin
gulsleG from Young vs.. Gillespie, II HE'S.
232 This latter case creditors names no
given
.. deed properly acknowledged an
noted tor registration, out recorded in boo
for liz registration of chattel mortgages
g.. md not in the book of conveyance
Of real estate Held-S456a is director
10 H. register, and when a deed is note
and raoorded it is notice to all the world
ron The time it is noted Code. $207;
S"epeon vs.. Exchange and Deposit Ban
e' q. Deadrick, c. J.