The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-27
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
MRS. LETITIA HART VANCE DESIRES
A CORRECTION OF A DEED.
Tho History OF Couple Married Forty
Five Years Ago-A Deed OF Transfer
That Does Not Transfer Sought To Be
Corrected.

. ycsVSTuuy DV MrS. IeIllld llurt '"hNV, NV
Thompson, and relict of the late w. L.
Vance, against 0tey Vance and others,
4 that will prove OF more than ordinary in
4 terest.
The plaintiff is joined by. her children
and grandchildren, and the parties,
plaintiff and defendant are numerous
enough to make up quite community in
themselves.
The allegations set out in the petition
are unique and perusal Of them will
bring back to the elder generation now
\ living "reminiscences Of things once familiar
enough but which, under the lights of the
n present day, appear grotesque. Reducing
A the solemn verbosity OF the petition to
"pain United States" the following story
n Is evolved:
In the year 1874 Miss Letitia Hart
Thompson gave her hand and heart TO w.
L. Vance, in the State OF Kentucky. How
Mr.. Vance was supplied with worldly
goods does not appear, but his young
wife must have been quite prize
in those days Of prizes. Among her earth
ly possessions she numbered $40 negro
slaves, roughly valued at 100000, and
$4,000 in cash, together with 1000 acres
OF land in Mercer County, KY, valued at
A-il00, 600, all Of which she inherited from
1ief father, making the snug total OF $780,
900. The negroes and the money were
turned over to her husband, who took up
his home in West Tennessee. What be-
came OF the greater part OF the money is
not set forth. The tract OF land with its
magnificent improvements was retained
for awhile as the sole and individual prop
erty OF Mrs. Vance. In 1869 Mr.. Vance
proposed TO his wife that she dispose OF
the Kentucky home. She objected, and
only when assured by her husband of the
great profits to be made in the bargain did
she reluctantly consent to sign It away.
The trade was a novel one. Instead OF
money the 1000 acres OF land were traded
of for $4,000 gallons OF whisky, worth
then about 100000 This whisky was
held in bond for some time and disposed
OF for $4,000. The husband promised,
as an inducement 10 his wiie's sell
ing her homestead, that he would
reinvest the money in Memphis or Shelby
County realty, but when the whisky was
sold the money was loaned out ut interest
and no investments made. Mrs. Vance
urged upon her husband q compliance
with his promise about reinvesting but he
ferred Tor one reason or another. Mem
Is property was decreasing in value, Inc
"a, and when the bottom would DO.
ached he would then invest. Finally a
l1an named Mitchell, having borrowed
some $1,000 or $4,000 OF Mrs. Nance's
money from her husband on a tract OF
1850 acres Of land near the corporate linn
its OF Memphis and on toward Horn Lake,
had TO surrender II, owing TO his inability
10 redeem the property. Tho tract was
also incumbcred by money borrowed from
Memphis bank, aud this also was liqui-
dated by MrVlncc with his wiie'smoncy,
making in all an expenditure on the place
OF $4,000. Mr.. Vance pIomised now
that this was beginning Of the redemp-
ton Of his obligation TO his wife. He
told her that deed 20 this property should
be made out in her name, but when the
transfer was made he had the deed made
-~-Uht in his own. Mrs. Vance had two
small lots In her own name which her
husband induced her 10 transfer 10 him,
which she did. Mr.. Vance promised 10
convey TO ~ wife, as her individual
property, the 1850 acre tract. In 1871 he
had deed prepared which his wife sup.
posed was q vesiituro OF title In her, and
so believed until recently. Her husband
continued 10 control and manage tho
property, collecting rents therefor and APP
plying the profits TO his own use. A few
years before Mr. Vancc's DEATH his health
failing him, he turned the management
aud control Of the lands over 10 his wife,
who has since collected rents therefor sup
posing the property 20 be absolutely her
own The lands thus designated cost SO
600, but the rapid growth Of the city has
aH .,ssgl IkUts -.
probably worth Sl50.0O or 500, 900
as residence property. Mrs. Vance
desired 20 dispose OF some OF the
estate TO town lot companies but
20 &c. d.s.aay her attorneys told her Ia.
the deed from her husband 10 herself was
20 constructed that her powers and priyil-
eyes In the premises were circumscribcd
aud confined solely 10 n collection OF tho
rents aud profits Of the land and 20 living
In the home built thereon. She could not
and cannot sell a foot Of the land. She
can dispose Of II only by will aud the
beuefciaries Of her bounty must be selected
from among her own kin, her children and
their children. BY the deed she finds that
she has merely life estate In the lands
supposed TO bc her own. The large prop.
cry Of her husband has been disposed Of
by will 10 bis children, leaving her moth.
Ing but this lie csiaic. she sets ipfth IN
4 lhor petition that inasmuch rs her husband
- lromiscd and she believes fully intended
" rcinycst the money received from the
falo OF her Kentucky home. and as the pur-
chaee money was hers, thatshc should have
the deed 20 changed by the court rs 10 vest
title In her and thus enable her 70 dispose
Of the property 20 tho best advantage.
Used rs the property now "a, Tor farming
purposes, Il brings her In only small rev.
enue, wholly inadequate for her support,
End the taxes have increased 20 with the
increased assessments that but little Il left
her.
Tho question will be a somewhat move
one for the cour, 10 decide. II equity u
not too much handicapped by law the pc
iiiion will be granted. There Is much IN
the case but much more suggested by "
There " a history running back foriy.liy,
yeara, connecting two distinct and diiicr
ont conditions Of society aud government
over all Of which the lights and shadow
play alternately.
An uaearthcd Tot.
Yesterday ~ some men were plowini