Case Name: Mitchell vs. Nicholson, et al.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1835-06
Citations: 8 Yer. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mitchell vs. Nicholson, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 194–205

Head Matter:
Mitchell vs. Nicholson, et al.
When a suit in equity is removed from the circuit court to the supreme court, upon a writ of error, the depositions and proofs read upon the hearing, form no part of the record on which errors can be assigned .
A covenanted to convey to B one thousand acres of land, in a five thousand acre survey, out of which A was to have the privilege of first selling yjrbat he could for one month, so that he left two thousand aeres unsold, out of which B was to select his one thousand acres, in ten pieces, one of which was to include his improvement. A made but few sales within the month; but after its expiration, and before B had made any election, A sold and conveyed a large portion of the land to C: B then elected to take ten tracts, including portions purchased by different individuals, and filed his bill for a specific performance of the contract, and confirmation of his election, and a title to the lands elected: Held, that under the circumstances, it was competent for a court of chancery to revoke B’s election, order a survey of the lands and another election by B, of lands not sold.
When an election is given to one, and a survey of the lands ordered, and the tracts elected and surveyed, have more than four sides, run not with the cardinal points, and are more than twice as long as broad, the election and report will be set aside, and a new election and survey be ordered, so that the tracts be surveyed with four sides, not more than twice as Jong as broad, and to tha cardinal points, provided there be no interference with other tracts.
The complainant filed his bill, alleging that Samuel Nicholson had made an agreement with one John Ireland, which agreement was as follows:
“This agreement made the 16th of March, 1811, between Samuel Nicholson and John Ireland, witnesseth, that the former sells to the latter one thousand acres of land in King’s big survey, on Clinch river; out of which big survey, N. is first to sell what he can in the course of next month, still leaving two thousand acres unsold; out of which Ireland is to pick his thousand, in ten pieces, or parcels; one of which shall be where his improvement is, near Wolf’s mill, for which he is to pay ninety dollars, in four years; he now pays ten dollars. In witness whereof, &C. '
Samuel Nicholson.”
On the 8th day of June, 1811, it was assigned in these words: “l assign over to Richard Mitchell," all my interest to the within agreement, for value received.
John Ireland [Seal.]”
Ireland made no Selection of the land ünder the agreement; and so the bill charges. Mitchell filed his hill for a specific execution of the contract, showing therein, that he had made selection of ten tracts, and designates them thus: “Two hundred acres where Jesse Day andD. Day live; one hundred acres where John Mitchell lives; fifty acres, where old Mr'. Trent lives; one hundred acres where William Martin lives; fifty acres where Thomas Barda lives; one hundred acres where old Mr. Pearson did live; one hundred acres where William Bird lives; fifty acres John Ireland’s improvements; one hundred acres where William Trent did live; one hundred acres where Reuben Lianson did live; fifty acres where Adam Neal lived; in all, eleven tracts.” The hill charges a collusive- transfer of all the lands in William King’s survey by the said Nicholson, suffering a sale for the taxes: The deed of the sheriff reserves the right of Mitchell to these tracts selected.
The defendants, Nicholson and Johnson, resist the demand, on the ground of uncertainty in the lands selected; there being no huts or hounds, and the ■ description being general; also, on the ground, that the lands are not such as were in the contemplation of the parties; that they are of gfeat value, compared with the sum given, or to be given; that no deed was drawn and tendered for signature; and that Nicholson could not convey the land by the general description; also, that Ireland, and not Mitchell, was to mahe the selection; and upon the further ground, that' 1 t Mitchell’s bargain with Ireland was tainted with champerty; the bargain being, that Mitchell was to bring the suit, bear the expense of it, and have eight hundred acres of the land. By the replication filed, these were the principal matters put in issue.
Proof, on this state of the pleadings, was taken. It was shown, that the lands selected by Mitchell were worth-between three and five thousand dollars, that Mitchell had paid Ireland in procuring the assignment only ten dollars, and was to be at all trouble and expense in prosecuting the suit, and if successful, Ireland to have two hundred out of die one thousand.
A supplemental bill was filed; but it is:useless to notice it, for it was not prosecuted to effect, and was finally dismissed; a demurrer had been filed to it.
On the final decree, none of the evidence'is set out. It states, that it appears to the court, that the complainant is enfided to 'relief, though not to the extent prayed for in the bill. It then orders, that Hezekiah Hamblin be a commissioner, to ascertain if there be two thousand acres, exclusive of lands conveyed to Nicholson and Johnston, by a deed confirming die tax sale. The survey to ascertain this, might, by agreement, be dispensed with, and the same was dispensed with; therefore, Hamblin was to survey the land as the same was to be selected by Mitchell, in ten tracts — the settlement at Wolf’s mill to be one— and malte report to the next term of the court; returning therewith, plats of the land so selected, when the court will decree the title to the pieces so selected, to be vested in the said Mitchell, his heirs or assigns, upon said Mitchell paying the balance of the one hundred dollars, with interest.
Hamblin, on the selections, as these were made by Mitchell, surveyed ten tracts, and retened plats thereof to a subsequent term of the court, when a motion was made by Mitchell to set aside the report. Many of the tracts' appear to bé in strips, with zigzag boundaries, three xx x . them five times as long as wide, one seven times as long as wide. The value of the lands, thus selected, was not shown in proof, because the evidence in the cause had been closed, and the testimony directed to the previous selection in the bill set out. By affidavit, it was shown, that Mitchell, while making his selections, made agreements with sundry settlers on the land, obtaining several hundred dollars from them, by agreeing not to select the places where they reside. The court decreed an af-firmance of the report, which was excepted to, and the defendants prosecuted a writ of error to this court.
The transcript of the record, sets out all the depositions and proofs read upon the hearing of the cause inj court below.
John A. M. Kinney, for complainants.
Thomas L. Williams, for defendants.

Opinion:
Cateon, C. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
We are of opinion, that in this cause, brought here by writ of error from the chancery court, the depositions and proofs copied into the transcipt, are no part of the record on which errors can be assigned. By the laws of England governing a court of chancery, the proceedings of that court are not records, nor were the proceedings of our courts of equity records previous to the act of 1801, ch. 6, =sec. 42, 45, 46. The parts of the proceedings in causes to be recorded, are bills, answers, pleas, demurrers, replications, issues of fact, verdicts therein, and decrees, together with all orders taken - in the cause, and entered on the order book, from day to day.
Looking to those parts of the record regularly before this court, nothing can be seen to authorize us to reverse the decree made for complainant in 1825.
Tt is insisted, that Mitchell elected the' lands previous tc fifing his bill, and went for the tracts elected, and that the chancery court could not execute the covenant, by turning him over to other lands and a new selection; but that his bill must be dismissed, he be compelled again to elect, and then, if no conveyance be made, file another bill. The contract had been made the 16th March, 1811. To the end of April, 1811, Nicholson was to sell all'he chose of his two large tracts, and then Ireland was to select his thousand acres out of the residue; but Nicholson was to-leave Ireland's thousand acres unsold. On the- 3d March, 1814, Mitchell filed his bill, having theretofore elected ten tracts, principally of the lands sold by Nicholson'after the-,first of May,. 1811, and before the filing of the bill. As-Ireland, or his assignee,-* could alone elect, not Nicholson, and circumstances had greatly changed during the time-Mitchell had the power to elect, and before he elected and filed his bill for a specific performance, the court rejected. Mitchell's election, and ordered another to be made.
This we think well warranted by the circumstances of the case, and the rules governing a court of chancery. Maddox, in his Chancery Practice, 1 vol. 389, gives tire rule, that the court will not decree a specific performance, according to the letter of the covenant, where there has been a change of circumstances; but it seems, in such case, it will execute the covenant according to a conscientious modification of it, to do justice as circumstances will-permit.
The report of the commissioner, of the selection of the ten tracts, as selected and surveyed'pursuant to the decree of 1825, was excepted to, because the tracts were in irregular figures with more than four sides, much more than twice .as long as wide, and the lines not to the cardinal points. - The exception was overruled, and the report confirmed. We think the final decree on this report is erroneous, and must be reversed. The cause will be remanded to the chancery court, and another election be made, and the tracts surveyed to the cardinal points, with wily four sides to each tract, and no tract to be more than twice as long as wide, unless it interferes with another tract heretofore conveyed or granted; when the general surveying laws of the state will be pursued.