Bank of Louisville v. Leftwick
| Decision Date | 30 April 1872 |
| Citation | 56 Tenn. 471 |
| Parties | THE BANK OF LOUISVILLE v. JOHN W. LEFTWICK et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM SHELBY.
Appeal from the decree of the 2d Chancery Court, October Term, 1871. R. J. MORGAN, Ch., sitting by interchange.HARRIS & PILLOW, WILSON & BEARD for appellant.
STEPHENS & SMITH, GANTT & MCDOWELL for appellee.
This was a bill filed by the Bank of Louisville, to enforce a mortgage executed by F. J. & J. W. Leftwick, to secure the payment of several bills of exchange drawn by them, and sold to said bank. F. J. Leftwick was dead when the bill was filed--his widow and heirs were made parties and were served with process. The widow, who has since intermarried with McGee, answered, claiming dower. The children being minors, were represented by Cash, who answered for them as guardian, but the record contains no separate entry showing his appointment. J. W. Leftwick died pending the suit--his widow and children, all minors, were made defendants regularly by scire facias, and George Gantt appointed guardian ad litem; as such he answered for them. The widow of J. W. Leftwick answered and claimed dower.
F. Titus, a complainant in the bill, died pending the suit, when by consent the same was revived in the name of his executors, Edmundson and Titus. On the 12th of January, 1871, a decree was made ordering a sale of the land, subject to the dower, which was directed to be laid off. It was ordered that the sale be made on six months' time, and that it be absolute, without any right of redemption--but it does not appear that this order was made upon the application of the complainant.
The clerk and master made sale of the land on the 20th of April, 1871, when the same was purchased by Edmundson and Titus, executors, for the benefit of the estate of F. Titus, deceased, and they executed their note for $10,000, with security.
The report was made to the Court, and on the 28th of November, 1871, the same being unexcepted to, was confirmed, and the title divested and vested in the purchasers.
On the same day, the master having reported that the note for $10,000 was due and unpaid, judgment was rendered thereon against the makers and their surety.
At the same time the executors of Titus, who were the makers of said note, appealed to this Court.
Several irregularities are pointed out in the proceedings which do not affect the merits of the case, and which it is not necessary specially...
To continue reading
Request your trial