Case Name: Lyon vs. Vick and Crusman
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1834-03
Citations: 6 Yer. 42
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lyon vs. Vick and Crusman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 42–44

Head Matter:
Lyon vs. Vick and Crusman.
When a slave is specifically devised, and the executors assent to the bequest, such slave cannot be sold to satisfy a judgment recovered against the executors for a debt due from the estate.
The bill charges that Lyon made his will, which is exhibited, and died in 1827; that the will was proved, and complainant and defendant Vick qualified as executors. That the assets not specifically devised, amounted to only $720, and the testator’s debts amounted to $2,650.
The $720 arose from sales of property as directed by the will; at the sale of which property Vick purchased to the amount of $195 55 cents, no part of which he ever applied to the payment of testator’s debts or paid to complainant. That M’Clure recovered a judgment against complainant and defendant Vick, as executors of their testator; that on this judgment a fieri facias came into the hands of defendant Crusman, who levied upon a negro girl, Anne, devised in the will to Vick; that Vick forbade the sale; that complainant indemnified the sherilf, and the sale proceeded; that the negro devised to complainant was sold for testator’s debts; and that he had paid of his own funds more than his proportion of the debts, &c.
That Vicksued the sheriff Crusman, and obtained a judgment for $230, and Crusman obtained a judgment against complainant on his bond of indemnity for debt and costs, being about $250: prays for an injunction and relief. — • The answer of Vick admits the will exhibited, and that he arid complainant qualified as executors, but says he left the management of the estate wholly to complainant, and never could learn from complainant the true situation of the estate, and does not know what testator owed. Charges, that the assets which came to complainant’s hands, besides the specific legacies, was $920, instead of $720: and besides $152 which complainant owed testator, he, complainant purchased at the sale $103. Testator owed defendant Vick $112; that the balance of the negroes bequeathed to him by the will, besides Anne, were sold for $957, and the proceeds applied to the payment of testator’s debts; that he took possession of Anne with the assent of complainant. A reference to the clerk was made to take the accounts between the parties, who reported against the complainant a balance. The bill was dismissed.
Thompson, for complainant.
W. E. Anderson and Clark, for defendants.

Opinion:
Green, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The negro slave Anne, was devised to the defendant Vick, in the will of Guthridge Lyon, and Willie Lyon, the complainant and acting executor of the will, assenting to the legacy, delivered her into the possession of Vick. After this, a judgment was obtained against the executors of Guthridge Lyon, and the slave Anne levied on and sold by the sheriff Crusman, he having been indemnified by the complainant. Vick sued Crusman the sheriff, and recovered a judgment, who, on motion, obtained judgment^against Lyon. To enjoin these judgments, Lyon filed this bill, alleging that the property of the testator in his hands had been exhausted in the payment of debts, and that the sale of this negro was necessary in order to satisfy the executions against the estate.
After the executor consented to the legacy by delivering the slave into the possession of the defendant Vick, .she no longer constituted part of the estate of the testa- ^or, but was vested absolutely in Vick. Toller, 310, The jienjacias against the estate ot the testator, could not therefore lawfully have been levied on her. 5 Mun. 175. The recovery at law was correct, and the complainant had no pretence for coming into a court of equity for relief. Had he paid debts to a greater amount than the assets in his hands, then he might have called upon the legatees to contribute for his indemnification. But this was not the case, and he had no excuse for causing the unlawful seizure of Vick's negro in order to save himself from liability.
Decree affirmed.