Case Name: Terrill vs. Murry
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1833-02
Citations: 4 Yer. 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: Terrill vs. Murry.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 104–106

Head Matter:
Terrill vs. Murry.
The act of limitations is binding on courts'of equity, as well as courts of law.
The statute of limitations does not bar a technical trust created by contract, continued, acknowledged and acted upon by the parties.
If a trustee take possession of property as his own, during the right of the cestui que trust, and hold the property adversely, lapse of time from that period will constitute a bar in equity.
If one joint tenant, or tenant in common, receive the rents and profits of the joint estate, claiming them as his own, the statute of limitations will bar his co-tenant in a court of equity upon a bill filed for an account.
The statute of limitations will run between joint tenants and tenants in common, from the time of an adverse possession.
The bill in this case was filed in the chancery court at Bolivar, and alleges that Murry, on the 6th day of January, 1825, leased and rented to Elisha and Thomas Boyts, the improvements made upon the north west side of a tract of 640 acres of land lying in the 10th district, 2 section of the first range, belonging to complainant, for a corn rent, upon which the defendant Murry re- • ii . ii m . _.. i , ceivea the rent m corn worth about §125; that the contract was for the benefit of complainant and defendant, and that Murry refuses to account for the rent, and prays a decree for the rents received by Murry. Mur-ry’s answer admits, that he rented to the Boyts that part of the tract of land mentioned in the bill for a corn rent, to he paid on or before the 1st day of October, 1825, admitso that the renting was upon the 6th of January, as stated in the bill, but denies that it was for the benefit of the complainant, admits that, he has received the rent, and pleads the statute of limitations to the claim of complainant. The proof in the cause shows, that Murry and Alexander had, previous to the 6th of January, 1825, located lands for the complainant; that among the number of tracts was the one mentioned in the bill; that Murry and Alexander were entitled to their ^ocative interest in the lands, and had not received a conveyance for them on the 6th of January, 1825, but that at that time the legal title was in complainant; that on the 22d day of October, 1825, the said complainant, Alexander and Murry, came to an agreement by which the complainant covenanted to convey to Murry his locative interest in the tract of land in the bill mentioned," which would have embraced the improvements; and that Murry covenanted to convey his locative interest in other lands for this; that at the time the land was rented, it belonged to complainant, except Murry’s locative interest, and continued so until the 22d of October, 1825, when said agreement was made; that Murry had received the rent before the 22d of October, 1825, and more than three years before the commencement of this suit. The chancellor dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed to this court.
Fentress, for the complainant.
P. M. Miller, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Catron, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
We hold the law to be, that the act of limitations is equally binding on a court of equity and a court of law; that on the nature of the property, and the relation and character of the parties, are based any exceptions to its application that may exist.
To a technical trust created by contract, continuing, acknowledged, and acted upon by the parties, to enforce which, there is no remedy at law, tire statute does'not apply. But if the trustee take possession of the property as his own, during the right of the cestui que trust, holding the property adversely, lapse of time from that period may, in certain cases, constitute a bar in equity. 20 John. Rep. 375, on appeal in Murry vs. Costar: 3 John. Ch. Rep. 190.
In the cause before the court, Murry received the rents of Terrill, as one of the joint owners of the'land, claiming them as his, (Murry's) own, because in the petition, the particular tract for which these rents were due, was partitioned to Murry and Alexander, the locators of different tracts. In such case there can be no doubt the statute of limitations forms a bar. So the chancellor adjudged, and we affirm the decree.
Decree affirmed.