Battle v. Claiborne

• Decision Date: 22 November 1915
• Citation: 180 S.W. 584,133 Tenn. 286
• Parties: BATTLE ET AL. v. CLAIBORNE ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

180 S.W. 584

133 Tenn. 286

BATTLE ET AL. v. CLAIBORNE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 22, 1915

Appeal from Chancery Court, Shelby County; Wm. H. Fitz-Hugh, Special Chancellor.

Action by W. B. Battle and others against Louis E. Claiborne and others. From a decree in favor of complainants, respondents appeal. Reversed.

Jno. Brown, Barton & Barton, and Grover N. McCormick, all of Memphis, for appellants.

A. H Murray and Byars & Capell, all of Memphis, for appellees.

BUCHANAN J.

Col Frederick Battle and his wife, Martha A. R. Battle, each died testate, the wife surviving the husband. They were childless. For the most part of their married life they resided on what was known as the "old Battle homestead." The house in which they lived was located on land the title to which was in Mrs. Battle at the time of her death, and it had been for many years prior to that event. The land so owned by her when she died was a tract containing 255 acres. Her holding originally had been larger, but it had been reduced by sales. Lying to the north of, and adjoining the 255-acre tract which she owned, was a tract of land containing 239 acres. The ownership of this 239-acre tract is the storm center of this litigation. This land, on the one hand, is claimed by the complainants, who are, for the most part, kindred of Col Battle. They claim the land as remaindermen under his last will, after the falling in of what they insist was a life estate in Mrs. Battle, created by the will of Col. Battle. On the other hand, this land is claimed by the defendants as the next of kin and heirs at law of Mrs. Battle. These defendants are John A. Claiborne, a surviving brother of Mrs. Battle, and the descendants of a deceased sister of Mrs. Battle. No mention of this tract of land was made by Mrs. Battle in her last will, though she did by that instrument devise the 255-acre tract, which it is conceded she owned.

The will of Col. Battle was dated February 15, 1905, and its first item is:

"I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Martha Battle, during her life all of my land situated in the first district in Shelby county, consisting of 239 acres, being an undivided portion of the north end of the tract I live on, and is explained in the deed, at her death this land to be sold, or she can sell this land at any time during her life, if she thinks best, and at her death the money is given to the following parties."

Then follow ten separate bequests of money to as many beneficiaries, who are the complainants in this suit. Then the will continues:

"When this land is sold, and it brings more than the above amounts, it is to be prorated to the above persons, according to the amounts given them. I give and bequeath to my beloved wife, Martha Battle, all of my personal property. I do nominate and appoint my wife, Martha Battle, to be the executor of this my last will and testament without bond. My executor is to pay all of my just debts before any of these or any bequests are given.

Fred Battle."

There were two witnesses to the execution of the will, and to it there was added a codicil of date December 11, 1906, making a change in respect of one of the money bequests. This will and codicil was presented for probate by Mrs. Battle on March 27, 1907. She qualified as executrix thereunder and made her final settlement as executrix.

The will of Mrs. Battle was dated November 2, 1912, and was offered for probate June 6, 1912, and duly probated by the executor in it named, who was her nephew, Louis E. Claiborne.

After the death of Col. Battle, Mrs. Battle sold certain standing timber on the land in suit. The timber was cut and removed from the land, and Mrs. Battle never accounted to the complainants for the proceeds. She died leaving an insufficient personal estate to pay her debts. After her death this suit was instituted, its purpose being to secure a decree against her estate for the value of the timber which she had cut and sold. Its further purpose was to have a decree subjecting the 255-acre tract to sale in order to satisfy such decree as complainants might recover.

By an amended and supplemental bill complainants sought a decree declaring two certain deeds to be clouds on their title to the tract in suit. One of these deeds was made by Col. Battle to John A. Claiborne, and the other was made by John A. Claiborne to Mrs. Battle. These deeds will be considered more at length hereafter.

In opposition to the purposes of the complainants as above declared, the defendants, by their pleadings, insist: First, that at the death of her husband, and thereafter until her own death, by virtue of the two deeds already mentioned, Mrs. Battle was owner in fee of the land in controversy, from which the timber was cut, and that upon her death the title to the 239-acre tract was cast upon the defendants by descent; second, that under the will of Fred Battle absolute power was vested in Mrs. Battle to sell, not only the timber, but the lands, and therefore, if wrong in their first position, she acquired a fee in the land under her husband's will; third, if wrong in the first and second contentions, then upon a proper construction of the will complainants could only recover such part of the proceeds of the timber sold as had not been consumed by Mrs. Battle at the time of her death; fourth, that under the prayer of the cross-bill filed by defendants they are entitled to a decree declaring them to be the owners of the 239-acre tract in suit, and to a decree dismissing complainants' bills.

The chancellor granted a decree in favor of complainants against the estate for $1,578, and costs. The cross-bills of defendants were dismissed, and the decree awarded satisfaction and payment of the above amount out of a fund then in court which had been produced by an agreed sale of the 255-acre tract owned by Mrs. Battle at the time of her death. The sale of said tract had been consummated during the progress of the cause, by consent of all parties thereto. The decree also awarded relief as to the reformation and cancellation sought by complainants. From this decree, defendants appealed.

It is conceded that Col. Battle was the owner of the land in suit on January 20, 1868, on which date he executed and delivered to John A. Claiborne, Mrs. Battle's brother, a warranty deed purporting to convey the full fee in the land for a recited cash consideration of $1,200. This deed was acknowledged and filed for registration April 7, 1868. From this date for about 9 years, so far as the record shows, the title to this tract of land stood vested in John A. Claiborne.

On December 22, 1870, Claiborne executed a deed purporting to convey said tract of land to his sister, Martha A. R. Battle, for a recited cash consideration of $1,400. This deed purported to vest in her the full fee as a separate estate in the land in suit. The acknowledgment of this deed is of date August 28, 1872. The deed was not filed for registration until April 5, 1877. For about 13 years and 6 months after the date of the registration of this deed the record title to this tract was allowed to stand apparently vested as a separate estate in Martha A. R. Battle, under the deed from Claiborne to her. This period of time, added to the 9 years during which the record title had been allowed to rest in Claiborne, makes a total period of about 22 years during which the record showed no claim or color of title in Col. Battle to the land in suit. The 13-year period above mentioned came to an end on January 10, 1891, when there was filed for registration a quitclaim deed from Claiborne to Fred Battle purporting to convey all of Claiborne's right, title, and interest in the land in suit. This instrument is dated January 27, 1876. There was no acknowledgment until January 6, 1891. It recites, in its first part, that it is made in consideration of $5 cash in hand paid, but later, in its body, contains this recital:

"I quitclaim all of said land for and in consideration of the $1,700.00 paid me in hand."

This deed makes no reference to the original deed from Battle to Claiborne, nor to the deed from Claiborne to Mrs. Battle. It contains this warranty clause:

"I do hereby warrant the title herein conveyed unto the said Fred Battle, against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claiming the same by, through, or under me."

On the same day the above quitclaim deed was filed for registration, to wit, January 10, 1891, another deed was filed for registration, in which the grantors were Claiborne and his wife. It was dated January 5, 1891, and acknowledged January 6, 1891. It purports to convey to Fred Battle all of the right, title, and interest of the grantors of every kind in and to the tract in suit, and it contains a warranty by Claiborne only, in these words:

"And the said John A. Claiborne hereby warrants the title to said land against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through, or under him, but no further."

It also contains a recital, the substance of which is that the deed from Fred Battle to Claiborne, dated January 20, 1868, was only a mortgage, and intended to secure an indebtedness "then due" by Fred Battle to Claiborne, and that the same had been paid prior to the execution of the quitclaim deed of date January 27, 1876. It also recites that the failure to file for registration the quitclaim deed last named at an earlier date was due to the loss of that instrument.

Beyond dispute, Col. Fred Battle was the moving spirit in the execution of each of the two deeds and each of the quitclaim deeds above mentioned. Claiborne's part in each and all of the above conveyances was merely passive. The relations between these two men were very close and friendly. Battle was the older...