Anderson v. Nichols

Citation39 Tenn.App. 503,286 S.W.2d 96
PartiesMrs. Jane Sheegog ANDERSON v. Claude W. NICHLOS and Wife.
Decision Date09 September 1955
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee

Lon P. MacFarland, Jerry Colley, Henry C. McCall, Jr., Columbia, for plaintiff.

William H. Dale, Pride Tomlinson, Jr., Columbia, William C. Sugg, Nashville, for defendants.

SHRIVER, Judge.

The parties will be referred to as complainant and defendants as they appeared in the Court below.

I

The original bill herein was filed on October 15, 1953 by complainants, Jane Sheegog Anderson, and Jane Anderson Harris, who are respectively the mother and sister of William Sailer Anderson, deceased, whose body was found in Kentucky Lake in Humphreys County, Tennessee, on October 13, 1953.

The original bill alleges that the said William Sailer Anderson died intestate, apparently, on October 12, 1953.

On January 7, 1954, pursuant to an order of Court, an amended bill was filed wherein it was alleged that, since the filing of the original bill, the will of William Sailer Anderson, deceased, was found and admitted to probate, and that letters testamentary had been issued to Jane Sheegog Anderson as executrix and sole beneficiary of the estate of said deceased son.

Among other things, the bill alleges that, on October 9, 1953, and prior thereto, William Sailer Anderson owned certain real estate and personal property in Maury County, Tennessee, known as Brookwood Farm and Brookwood Farm Restaurant which was valued in excess of $150,000.

That, on October 13, 1953, defendant, Claude W. Nichols, filed for registration in the Register's Office of Maury County, Tennessee, a deed which purported to be executed by William Sailer Anderson, conveying all of the property described in the bill as Brookwood Farm and Brookwood Farm Restaurant to defendant Nichols and wife. Said instrument, on its face, appeared to have been executed by the said William Sailer Anderson on October 9, 1953 in consideration of $1 cash in hand paid and the exchange of other real estate.

The original bill as amended, prayed that the deed above mentioned be declared void as having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and for a grossly insufficient consideration, and that all right, title and interest of the defendants in and to said real estate and personal property be divested out of them vested in complainants.

It is also alleged that, at the time of the conveyance in question, Anderson was in such confused and distraught mental condition that he did not understand or comprehend the import and meaning of the transaction.

The bill prayed for an injunction, which was issued, and for a writ of attachment. Subsequently, a receiver was appointed.

The answer, in rather broad and general terms, denies all the material allegations of the bill.

The cause was tried before Chancellor R. E. Lee, at Columbia, Tennessee, and resulted in a decree wherein the prayers of the bill were granted and the deed to the property in question was declared null and void.

From the decree of the Chancellor, the defendants perfected an appeal to this Court and assigned errors.

II

Assignments of Errors

Assignment No. I, is as follows:

'The Chancellor erred in adjudicating that the paper writing dated and acknowledged on October 9, 1953 by Anderson conveying Brookwood Farm & Restaurant to the defendants was not the free act and deed of the said William Sailer Anderson and in declaring the same void and for nothing held.'

Assignment No. II asserts that the Chancellor erred in overruling the objections of the defendants to the testimony of Dr. Morris Adair, Leroy Bess, Milton Miler, Leroy Montgomery and Raymond Skiles as to statements made by Anderson to them.

Assignment No. III avers that the Chancellor erred in holding certain circumstances shown by the record to be badges of fraud.

Assignments Nos. IV, V, VI, and VII complain of certain findings of fact by the Chancellor and assert that these findings constituted errors.

Assignment No. VIII asserts that it was error for the Chancellor to hold that Nichols' failure to offer proof of a witness, Mrs. Garnand, created a presumption that her testimony, if introduced, would operate to the prejudice of Nichols.

Assignment No. IX is to the effect that the Chancellor erred in holding that Nichols was onerated with the burden of proving the bona fides of the transaction and that he failed to do so.

III

On the morning of October 13, 1953 the body of William Sailer Anderson was found floating in Kentucky Lake, at Trotter's Landing, in Humphreys County, Tennessee. Anderson's car was found submerged in the lake near by.

On this same day defendant, Claude W. Nichols, appeared at the Court House in Maury County and registered a deed dated October 9, 1953 which, on its face, transferred to Nichols for $1 and the exchange of certain properties in Nashville, Columbia and Shelbyville, Tennessee, the Brookwood Farm and Restaurant in Maury County which belonged to the deceased William Sailer Anderson.

Complainant charged that Nichols plotted and schemed to acquire Anderson's valuable Maury County property by fraud and deceit, for a grossly inadequate consideration; that Nichols went to Memphis to contact Anderson and represented that he wanted to buy Anderson's property; that his plan of deceit made a show of his supposed wealth to impress Anderson that he could buy the property for cash and, thereafter, led Anderson to think that he was going to purchase the property for $200,000 cash, while, it is charged, Nichols planned to pawn off or trade to Anderson three pieces of heavily mortgaged property in Nashville, Columbia and Shelbyville for Anderson's unencumbered property of much greater value; that Nichols, in order to create a screen of respectability around his plan of fraud, had title opinions on his three pieces of property prepared on September 9, 18, and 28, 1953, and deeds prepared and executed conveying the property to Anderson, before Anderson saw the Nashville and Shelbyville properties. It is further urged that Nichols prepared an option agreement of two or more pages and attached them together with removable fasteners and induced Anderson to sign and execute this said option, and that, thereafter, Nichols changed the contract, or option, to a deed, by substituting the first page, and secretly held this changed paper until Anderson was deceased.

It is further claimed that Nichols planted the three title opinions and three deeds from himself and wife, and his unsecured note for $2,000, in Anderson's automobile to make it appear that Anderson had entered into the trade and had accidentally driven into the lake where he drowned.

Complainant insists that Anderson did not knowingly accept the deeds from Nichols, and that he did not knowingly sign a deed to his valuable Maury County property, and, further, that he did not accidentally drive into Kentucky Lake where he met his death.

It is pointed out that, after deducting the mortgages and unpaid taxes on Nichols' property, the value of the equities therein was only a fraction of the value of the Anderson property, which, it is charged, was worth at least $100,000 more than the Nichols' property.

Defendants insist that the deed executed by William Sailer Anderson, conveying the property described therein to the defendants, was, in all respects, regular; that it was a culmination of a long period of negotiations between the defendant, Claude W. Nichols, and the said William Sailer Anderson, and that the sale to the defendants was made deliberately and knowingly by Anderson, who was fully aware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding said transaction.

It is admitted that the revenue stamps placed on the Anderson deed, was on the basis of $65,000 value, which value, they assert, was fair, reasonable and adequate.

Defendants say that the value of the three parcels of land transferred by the defendants to Anderson were worth $65,000, or approximately that amount. They deny that the consideration paid to Anderson for the transfer of his property is grossly inadequate, or out of proportion to the value of the property conveyed, or that there is anything on the face of the instrument, or otherwise, to indicate that its execution was induced by misrepresentation, fraud, coercion or guile.

IV

The record shows that prior to August 1953 the defendant Claude W. Nichols became interested in the acquisition of Brookwood Farm after he saw an advertisement or a 'for sale' sign thereon.

He went to Memphis on August 20, and had a conversation with Anderson about the property. Later he and Anderson met in Nashville and visited the Brookwood Farm and Restaurant and also visited Nichols' property in Columbia known as the Titcomb Apartment.

On October 8, 1953 Anderson again came to Nashville and they looked at the Anderson property and the Nichols property in Columbia and visited the property owned by the defendants in Nashville and in Shelbyville.

On October 9, Anderson acknowledged a paper writing before Ben J. Batts, a Notary Public. This paper contains the signature of William Sailer Anderson and that of the Notary Public. A copy of same is made exhibit 'A' to the original bill, and the original document is made exhibit to interrogatories of Mrs. Garnand.

The signature of Anderson and that of the Notary are the only two signatures on the paper writing in question. However, Ben J. Batts, the Notary Public who took the acknowledgment, testified positively that Nichols signed and acknowledged the same paper in Anderson's presence.

The signature of Nichols did not appear on the paper which he registered on October 13, 1953 at Columbia, and Nichols did not specifically deny in his testimony what Batts had said about his signing same.

The Chancellor, in his opinion, observes that the original answer admits that the property conveyed by Nichols was encumbered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • In re Coleman, CIV.A. 1:03CV00002.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • September 30, 2003
    ...Jones v. Seal, 56 Tenn.App. 593, 409 S.W.2d 382 (1966); Pipkin v. Lentz, 49 Tenn.App. 206, 354 S.W.2d 87 (1961); Anderson v. Nichols, 39 Tenn.App. 503, 286 S.W.2d 96 (1955); Bevins v. Livesay, 32 Tenn.App. 1, 221 S.W.2d 106 (1949); Williams v. Spinks, 7 Tenn.App. 488 (1928); White v. Bettis......
  • Walters v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A. Memphis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 14, 1988
    ...and circumstances proved [at trial] must clearly establish the inference of fraud." 409 S.W.2d at 385. See also Anderson v. Nichols, 39 Tenn.App. 503, 286 S.W.2d 96 (1955). A jury cannot render a verdict on the basis of speculation, surmise or conjecture. See Dayton Veneer & Lumber Mills v.......
  • Estate of John Acuff, Sr. v O'linger, 99-00680
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2001
    ...S.W.2d 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966); Pipkin v. Lentz, 49 Tenn. App. 206, 354 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961); Anderson v. Nichols, 39 Tenn. App. 503, 286 S.W.2d 96 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955); Bevins v. Livesay, 32 Tenn. App. 1, 221 S.W.2d 106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1949); Williams v. Spinks, 7 Tenn. App. ......
  • In re Coleman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • October 7, 2003
    ...a preponderance of the evidence. See Jones v. Seal, 56 Tenn. App. 593 (1966); Pipkin v. Lentz, 49 Tenn. App. 206 (1961); Anderson v. Nichols, 39 Tenn. App. 503 (1955); Bevins v. Livesay, 32 Tenn. App. 1 (1949); Williams v. Spinks, 7 App. 488 (1928); White v. Bettis, 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 645 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT