Case Name: James O. Senter vs. Massey Hill et al.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1858-09
Citations: 5 Sneed 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: James O. Senter vs. Massey Hill et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 505–507

Head Matter:
James O. Senter vs. Massey Hill et al.
1. Chancery Jubisdiction. Sale of land. Injunction. Warranty. The purchaser of land, who has been put into possession-under a deed with covenants of warranty alone, is, in the absence of fraud and before eviction, entitled to no relief in Chancery, against the payment of the purchase money, on the ground of defective title. He must rest upon the covenants of his deed.
2. Same. Same. Pleading and practice. A bill 'filed by the purchaser of land, to enjoin the payment of the purchase money, on the ground that a suit is actually pending against him .by one claiming a paramount title, is demurrable, unless it aver that said suit is under a paramount title.
3. Cases Cited. Ingrain vs. Morgan et al., 4 Humph., 66.
EROM JEEEERSON.
This bill was filed in the Chancery Court at Dan-dridge, on the 21st of December, 1857, to enjoin the collection. of certain judgments on notes givén by the complainant, in the purchase of real estate, on the ground of defective title. The bill in substance charges, that the' complainant purchased of the respondent, certain lands, at the price of $3700 00; that he was put into possession of said lands under a deed, with general warranty of title; that he has paid all of said purchase money but about $500 00, and is now sued before a justice of the peace for that amount, who has rendered judgment and issued execution against him; that he is involved in a heavy and expensive law suit .about the title to part of said land, with one Lawrence, who is prosecu ting the action of ejectment, and has obtained a verdict, after three contests in the Circuit Court of Jefferson, and one trial in the Supreme Court. That he is in great danger of losing the land, and of being compelled to pay “enormous costs” in defending the suit. That his deed covers the land in litigation, which is worth about $900 00, and that the boundaries were actually pointed out to him by the defendant, when the purchase was made. To this bill there was a demurrer, on the ground that no eviction is alleged; and upon the ground also, that the bill does not allege the title of Lawrence to be superior to that of the complainant. At the June Term, 1858, Chancellor Lucky sustained the demurrer, and the complainant appealed.
A. J. ElktcheR, for • the complainant.
Evans, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Weight, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is well settled as a general rule in this State, that where the purchaser of land has taken a deed with a covenant of warranty alone, and is put in possession and not evicted, a Court of Chancery will not give an injunction, or grant relief against the payment of the consideration, on the ground of defect of title. If there be no fraud in the sale, nor any eviction, the purchaser must rest on the covenants in his deed. Abbott vs. Allen, 2 Johns. Ch. R., 519; Ingram vs. Morgan & Garrett, 4 Humph., 66-68.
But if it were conceded that the rule is otherwise, where a suit is actually pending against the purchaser, by a person claiming a paramount title; (2 Johns. Oh. Rep., 545,) yet, in this case, the bill fails to aver that the suit is under a paramount title.
The Chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, and we affirm his decree.