Belote v. Henderson

• Citation: 45 Tenn. 471
• Parties: Belote v. Henderson.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1868
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

45 Tenn. 471

Belote

v.Henderson.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April Term, 1868.

FROM CARROLL.

There was a verdict and judgment in this case against Belote; from which he has appealed to this Court. Judge LUCIAN L. HAWKINS, presiding.

HUBBARD, ALLEN & RODGERS, for Belote.

HAWKINS & HAWKINS, for Henderson.

HENRY G. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a replevin for a horse, by Belote, against Henderson.

Greer's horse was stolen, and he supposed that Belote was concerned in the theft or taking, and the record discloses facts, giving some color to Greer's suspicions.

Accompanied by five or six men, armed with pistols and sabers, Greer goes to Belote's house, capturing on the way, and taking along, three men named Shafner, whom he seems to have thought were associated with Belote in the theft of the horse.

Finding Belote at home, Greer demands payment or settlement for the horse, and threatens, that if Belote does not pay or settle, he will arrest him and carry him to the military head-quarters, or to Paducah. Belote proposes to give his note, which Greer declines, and asks Belote if he has not a horse. Belote says he has, and after some hesitation by Belote, he and Greer go off together a short distance, and soon return with Belote's horse, and Greer gives Belote a receipt, or order, or writing of some kind, relating to the matter, and takes off the horse.

Some time afterwards, Belote learns that Henderson has the horse, to whom it appears that Greer had swapped him. And this is the animal about which is the present litigation, and for the recovery of which Belote sued out the replevin against Henderson.

The cause was submitted under charge of the Court, to a jury of Carroll County, who found a verdict against Belote.

The proper result of this cause turned on the question, whether the title to the horse passed from Belote to Greer, or whether the transfer was violated by duress upon Belote, and was, therefore, void.

The error in the record, is in the instructions of the Court to the jury. These instructions are, in substance, that if Belote converted, or aided in the conversion of Greer's horse, he was liable to Greer for the value of the horse; and in that case, the transfer of the Belote horse to Greer was valid, and vested in Greer the title, although the transfer was obtained from Belote by duress upon him, in the way of threats to arrest and imprison and carry him to the military head-quarters. On the other hand, if Belote was not liable to Greer for the conversion of his horse, in that case the transfer obtained by duress was void, and vested no title in Greer.

Briefly stated, the doctrine of the instructions is, that a contract of sale made under duress, vests the title to the property in the purchaser, if a sufficient consideration is received by the forced vendor.

Such is not the law of the land. It can make no difference, whether there be a consideration or none. A contract of sale obtained by duress, is void as against the party on whom the duress is committed, consideration or no consideration. Such contract or sale, lacks the assent on the part of the forced vendor, essential to the...