Boles v. Smith
| Citation | 37 Tenn. 105 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Parties | JOHN BOLES v. JOHN SMITH et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM OVERTON.
This action of ejectment is from the circuit court of Overton county. At the October term, 1857, before Judge Goodall, verdict and judgment were for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed in error.
S. Turney, J. P. Murray, and Jones for the plaintiff; Swope for the defendants.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by Boles against the defendants, in the circuit court of Overton, on the 28th of March, 1856.
The defence relied upon is that, in a previous action of ejectment instituted by the present defendants against one Allred, the tenant of the present plaintiff, subsequently to the passage of the act of 1852, ch. 152, the defendants recovered the same identical tract of land sued for in this action, and were put in possession of the same under process of the court, which judgment remains in full force; and the defendants rely upon said judgment in bar of this action, by force of the provision of the 2d section of the act of 1852.
The proof shows that, on the trial of the former action, Boles, though no party to the record, voluntarily appeared, produced his title papers, and was permitted to conduct the defence, in the name of his tenant. And having done so, it was insisted, on the trial of the present action, that he was concluded by the former judgment. Of this opinion was his honor the circuit judge, and he instructed the jury accordingly. Verdict and judgment were for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed in error.
We think the court erred in holding that the plaintiff was concluded by the judgment in the former action. The general principle is that no one can be bound by a verdict, or judgment, unless he be a party to the suit, or be in privity with the party; or possess the power of making himself a party. It is a plain elementary principle of justice that no one ought to be concluded by a judgment, as to a matter of private right, to which he was not a party; against which he could not avail himself of the means provided by law, for the assertion and protection of his rights; and from which he could not appeal, or prosecute a writ of error.
But it is said that here Boles might have had himself made a party defendant in the former suit; and having voluntarily renounced the right of being made a party to the suit, he cannot be heard, on this ground, to object to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Dneal v. Baptist Memorial Hosp.-Tipton
..., 1989 Neb. Laws, L.B. 443, as recognized in State v. Andersen , 232 Neb. 187, 440 N.W.2d 203, 205 (1989) ); see also Boles v. Smith , 37 Tenn. 105, 107 (1857) ("By the term party, in general, is meant one having a right to control the proceedings, to make a defence [sic], to adduce and cro......
-
In re Western
..., No. W2010-00320-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 761525, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2011) (citing Carson , 2007 WL 177575, at *4 ).In Boles v. Smith , 37 Tenn. 105, 5 Sneed (TN) 105, 1857 WL 2560 (Tenn. 1857), the supreme court considered a case in which a nonparty took part in ejectment proceedings......
-
In re West
...No. W2010-00320-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 761525, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2011) (citing Carson, 2007 WL 177575, at *4). In Boles v. Smith, 37 Tenn. 105, 5 Sneed (TN) 105, 1857 WL 2560 (Tenn. 1857), the supreme court considered a case in which a nonparty took part in ejectment proceedings but......
-
City of Chattanooga v. Swift
...a right to control proceedings, to make a defense, to adduce and cross-examine witnesses, and to appeal from the judgment. Boles v. Smith, 37 Tenn. 105, 107. And we would point out further, that upon no legal or equitable reason or rule are these movants entitled to intervene. The interest ......