Arnold v. Moyers

• Decision Date: 30 September 1878
• Citation: 69 Tenn. 308
• Parties: Arnold et als. v. Moyers et als.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

69 Tenn. 308

Arnold et als.

v.Moyers et als.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1878.

FROM JEFFERSON.

Appeal from the Chancery Court at Dandridge. H. C. SMITH, Ch.

KING & PARK for Complainants.

BARTON, MCFARLAND & SWAN for Defendants.

FREEMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The prayer of this bill is, that it be entertained as a bill of review, also a bill of revivor, and if necessary in order to obtain the relief to which complainants are entitled, that it be entertained as an original bill of review, to impeach the decree of sale for fraud. The particular name given the bill is not of much importance, as the rights of the parties must be determined on the matter of equity set forth, and not how it may be entitled.

A demurrer, assigning numerous causes of objection, is filed, which was sustained by the Chancellor. The correctness of this decree dismissing the bill is the question now before us. The complainants are, Reuben Arnold in his own right, and as heir-at-law of T. D. Arnold, deceased, who was his father, and Frank A. Arnold, as administrator of said T. D. Arnold, and one of his heirs, together with the other heirs-at-law of said Thomas D., and seeks to have a certain decree made in the case mentioned reviewed and set aside for their benefit.

The case of Reuben Arnold in his own right may be shortly disposed of. He claims to be the purchaser of a tract of land at execution sale, sold as the property of Alfred Moyers. This sale was made under a judgment in his favor, he purchasing, and then advancing his bid to the amount of his entire debt and costs, but has received no deed, the sale having been made in 1869. Reuben Arnold claims that the decree complained of, under which the land was sold, is void as to himself, and also Alfred Moyers, under whom he claims his title or equity, because neither of them were parties to the same. If this be so, it is clear his remedy is not by a bill of review, but by an original bill to remove cloud from his title, if any he has. A bill of review lies to impeach a decree for errors of law apparent on the face of the decree, or for new matter, which hath arisen in time after the decree, or for new testimony come to light after the decree was made, that could not possibly have been used when the decree was passed. Eaton v. Dickens, 3 Sneed, 397. A bill that assumes a judicial proceeding is absolutely void, is not a bill of review, but a bill to remove a cloud in a case like the present. 1 Head, 178. The principle is, that the decree must show error in decreeing relief against the party who seeks to have it reviewed; if such error of law against him appear on the face of the decree, he may, within the time allowed by law, have the same reviewed and set aside. This excludes the idea, that a party may file such a bill, simply because the decree made, may in some way affect property in which he has an interest. If he is not a party, nor in privity with a party bound, his rights are not affected by the decree, and no such error appears on the face of the decree against him as entitles him to this remedy. The bill was properly dismissed as to this feature of the case. The same result might be reached under the idea of misjoinder, as the claim of Reuben to the land, had no connection whatever with the other matters of the bill, which are its leading objects, but is only incidentally introduced as a subordinate and independent matter.

The next question is, whether the bill can be sustained as to the heirs of Thomas D. Arnold on the facts charged, either as a bill of review, or treating it as an original bill in the nature of a bill of review to impeach a decree for fraud. The facts necessary to be stated in order to present the question on this feature of the case, are briefly as follows?? In August, 1857, John and Hiram Moyers filed their bill against Silas and Alfred Moyers, to assert a right each to one-fourth of a tract of land conveyed to Silas by their father, and to have their share allotted to them. A decree in favor of complainants was ultimately had, and partition made in 1861.

In December, 1857, while said suit was pending, T. D. Arnold, the ancestor, had judgment in the Circuit Court against Silas Moyers, and levied execution on Silas' share in said land, had it sold, purchased it, and took a sheriff's deed for the same.

In 1861, Snoddy and others, creditors of Hiram and John Moyers, with parties who were creditors of Silas, filed their bill to enforce a deed of trust made to one McCampbell, for the benefit of McFarland, Barton et als., and to enforce the debts of the other parties against Silas, attaching the lands of the parties for said purpose. This included the land bought by T. D. Arnold, therefore he was made a party under the allegation that he had some claim, or pretended claim, to the share of Silas. This suit probably was consolidated or heard with the original case, though this is not very clear. It could not change the rights of the parties if done, however, as the bill would still stand on the same issues, as we have repeatedly held.

However, the case proceeded to a decree in the Chancery Court, and on appeal to this court in October, 1870, a decree was pronounced, affirming the right of complainants to have the deed of trust foreclosed, and the land of Hiram and John sold in satisfaction of the trust. It was decided that the heirs of Arnold hold under their sale and purchase the interest of Silas, and enjoining them from setting...