Case Name: Hord vs. Baugh et als.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1847-04
Citations: 7 Hum. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hord vs. Baugh et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 576–579

Head Matter:
Hord vs. Baugh et als.
The loss before registration, of a deed to land in the chain of a person’s title, is a casualty seriously endangeringhis title, and he has aright to the aid of a Court of Chancery, either to have the legal title vested in him as against the grantor and his representatives, or if lost, to have the deed set up and established as in all other cases of deeds.
Bill filed in the Chancery Court at Sommerville, against the heirs of Josiah Baugh deceased. The bill charges in substance, that complainant purchased a tract of land fiom one Thomas H. Fowlkes, and obtained from him a conveyance, with covenants of general warranty as to title — that prior to said purchase, one Josiah Baugh, then living, since deceased, was seized and possessed of said land, and sold and conveyed the same by deed of absolute conveyance to the said Thomas H. Fowlkes, which deed was only acknowledged before the County Court Clerk, for the purpose of registration, and after-wards lost without being registered. Complainant purchased the land from Fowlkes, on the 21st Sept., 1842. Baugh’s deed was executed in 1841, and acknowledged on the 17th of January, 1842. The bill further stated that complainant was in possession of said land, but desired to have the evidences of title set up and established — that said Josiah Baugh was wil ling, upon discovery of the loss of said‘deed, to make a new conveyance; but from accident, did not execute such new conveyance before his death, which took place in 1844. That said Baugh died intestate, and the land descended to his children as his heirs at law. The bill makes these children parties, and prays that said deed be set up, and that the title to said land be divested out of said heirs and vested in complainant— concluding with a general prayer for relief. The defendant’s answer, admitting the facts charged in the bill, and submitting to the court to render such decree in the premises as should be just and right. On final hearing, the Chancellor, (Andrew Mc-Campbell,) being of opinion that there was no equity in the bill, ordered the same to be dismissed. Complainant appealed.
J. C. Humphreys, for complainant.
It has been remarked by Lord Hardwicke, that the loss of a deed is not always a ground to come into a Court of Equity for relief, for if there is no more in the case, although the party may be entitled to a discovery of- the original existence and validity of the deed, courts of law may afford just relief since they will admit evidence of the loss and contents of a deed, just as a Court of Equity will do. To enable the party, therefore, in case of a lost deed, to come into Equity for relief, he must establish that there is no remedy at all at law, or no remedy which is adequate, and adapted to the circumstances of the case. In the first place, he may come into Equity for payment of a lost bond; for in such a. case his bill need not be for a discovery only, but may also be for relief; since the jurisdiction attached, when there was no remedy at law for want of a due proferí. In the next place, he may come into Equity when a deed of land has been destroyed, or is concealed by the defendant; for then as the party cannot know which alternative is correct, a Court of Equity will make a decree (which a court of law cannot) that the plaintiff shall hold and enjoy the land, until the defendant shall produce the deed or admit its destruction. So, if a deed concerning land is lost, and the party in possession prays discovery, and to be established in his possession under it, Equity will relieve; for no remedy in such a case lies at law. And where the plaintiff is out of possession, there are cases, in which Equity will interfere upon lost or suppressed title deeds, and decree possesssion to the plaintiff; but in all such cases there must be other equities calling for the action of the Court. Indeed, the bill must always lay some ground, besides the mere loss of a title deed, or other sealed instrument to justify a prayer for relief; as that the loss obstructs the right of the plaintiff at law, or leaves him exposed to undue perils in the future assertion of such right. Story’s Equity Juris., 1 vol., 85; 5 ed.
Equity has jurisdiction to compel the parties, through whom the owner derives his title to land, by deeds lost or unregistered according to law, to make new deeds that may be registered in time, to protect the party from creditors and purchaser's, and give him a regular chain of title. 6 Munro, 194-220; Blight’s heirs vs. Banks 8/c. 1st Pirtle’s Digest, page 838, sec. 258.
Patillo and Pearce, for defendants.

Opinion:
Turley, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This bill, filed by complainant, asking the aid of a Court of Chancery to set up a deed of bargain and sale for a tract of land, which was lost and destroyed before registration, the bargainor having departed this life without executing another.
The representatives of the bargainor do not resist the relief sought, but the Chancellor dismissed the bill, upon the ground that the bargainor having once conveyed the land, had parted with all his interest therein, and that the Court had no jurisdiction of such case.
In this we think the Chancellor erred. The loss of the deed is a casualty seriously endangering the complainant's title, as he can maintain no action of ejectment without it. He then certainly must have a right to ask the aid of a Court of Chancery in his case, either by having the legal title vested in him as against the bargainor and his representatives, or by having the deed set up and established as in all other cases of lost deeds. The complainant may have his decree for either or both of these remedies.