Case Name: Sweat et als. vs. Henson
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1844-09
Citations: 5 Hum. 49
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sweat et als. vs. Henson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Sweat et als. vs. Henson.
Where th« consideration was paid by one aione of the joint purchasers of real estate, upon a decree of sale of the interest of tlie other purchaser at the instance of judgment creditors, it is held, that he who paid the purchase money had a right first to be satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale.
This bill was filed by Sweat and others, judgment creditors of William Henson, in the Chancery Court at Pikeville, against William and John Henson, to obtain a decree for a sale of 500 acres of land, lying in Bledsoe county, for the satisfaction of their judgments.
William and John Henson purchased the land jointly, and a bond was taken for title to them jointly, and they took possession. John Henson paid most of the consideration, and took a deed to himself from the vendor; and executions having been returned nothing found on the judgments of said creditors, this bill was filed against the Hensons to subject William’s interest to sale.
The case came on and was tried on bill, answer, replication and proof, at the September term, 1843, by Chancellor Ridley. He decreed a sale of the land, and directed the proceeds to be appropriated, first to the satisfaction of judgment creditors, and secondly, to reimburse the money advanced by John in discharge of that portion of the consideration money due vendor by William Henson. John Henson appealed.
Thompson, for the complainant.
Whitesides, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Reese, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The complainants are the creditors of William Henson, and filed this bill to subject his equitable interest in a tract of land purchased by John Henson and the said William, from Mclver. The purchase at the time it took place was a joint one, and each was to pay one half of the price. A bond to convey the land was given to them by the vendor; and John and William entered into possession of the land under' their equitable title, and took possession of it severally, each of his own portion, having made a parol partition and a division line between them, and their possessions thus continued. John Henson having paid much the larger portion of the consideration, took a deed of.conveyance to himself alone for the entire tract from the attorney of Mclver, either for his indemnity, or because he wished to become owner of the entire tract.
An account has been taken of the claims of the complainants, and of the excess of the payment of the price by John Henson, and the Chancellor decreed that William's equitable title in the moiety of the tract possessed by him should be sold, and the proceeds be applied, first to satisfy'the claim of the complainants, the creditors of William, and then to the defendant, John Henson, for his claim, for having bought and paid for the land of William. This priority is clearly wrong. The priority in justice and reason is obviously the other way. The legal title is in John Henson, and to divest that without refunding the consideration, would be quite as unjust as to sell any of his other property to pay the debt of his brother William Henson.
The priorities of the Chancellor's decree must be exactly reversed; and for that purpose, and to that extent the decree is hereby reversed.