Burton v. Farmers' Building & Loan Ass'n.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1900 |
| Citation | 58 S.W. 230 |
| Parties | BURTON et ux. v. FARMERS' BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Carroll county; A. G. Hawkins, Judge.
Action by T. H. Burton and wife against the Farmers' Building & Loan Association. From a judgment in favor of complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Jo. R. & Lee B. Hawkins and J. W. Murphy, for appellant. McCall & McCall, for appellees.
Complainants filed this bill to enjoin defendant from selling their land under a deed of trust upon the several grounds that it was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations; that the transaction was a simple borrowing of money and securing the same by a deed of trust, and that it was so understood by complainants, and so represented by defendant's agent; that they did not bid for any loan of money, as is the practice in cases of loans by building and loan associations; that they were not stockholders in the association; and that the transaction was usurious. These several allegations designed to impeach the transactions were denied by defendant. A jury was demanded for the trial of the issues of fact involved. Four issues were submitted to the jury, in substance as follows: (1) Whether complainants were induced to execute the note and mortgage by the fraudulent representations of the defendant association; (2) whether the complainants bid for any loan of money in open competitive bidding at a stated meeting of the directors of the company; (3) whether complainants, or either of them, was a stockholder in the association when the money was borrowed; (4) whether the premium required upon the loan was a fixed one or one arrived at by competitive bidding. These issues were all found in favor of complainants' contention, but the verdict upon the first issue was set aside by the court, but, deeming the other issues determinative of the merits of the controversy and of the rights of the parties, the chancellor rendered judgment in favor of the complainants. The decree is, in substance, that complainants are liable only for the amount of money borrowed and 6 per cent. interest, less the amounts paid upon the same, computing interest according to the rule of partial payments; and there was the necessary and usual order of reference to ascertain the amount. Defendant association has appealed and assigned error.
The first error assigned is as to the manner in which the issues were made up to be submitted to the jury. It appears that formal issues, several in number, were submitted by both complainants and defendant. The court, deeming some of the issues not proper and some not material, proceeded to formulate the issues himself, embracing portions of those submitted by each party. The statute (Shannon's Code, § 6285) provides that "the issues shall be made up by the parties under the direction of the court and set forth briefly and clearly the true questions of fact to be tried." A proper construction of this statute requires the chancellor to see that proper and material issues are submitted, and such as are determinative of the question involved; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overstreet v. Shoney's
...based. See Continental Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, 108 Tenn. 374, 379, 68 S.W. 497, 498-99 (1902); Burton v. Farmers' Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 104 Tenn. 414, 418, 58 S.W. 230, 231 (1900). Therefore, they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Street Ry. v. Dan, 102 Tenn. 320, 321......
-
Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc.
...only when that decedent's estate or administration is a party to the lawsuit. T.C.A. § 24--105; Burton v. Farmers' Building & Loan Association, 104 Tenn. 414, 58 S.W. 230 (1900). This statute cannot be extended by the courts to cases not within its terms upon the idea they fall within the e......
-
Hay v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division
...exclusion of evidence which, if it had been admitted, clearly could not have varied the result. Again, in Burton v. Farmers Building & Loan Assn., 104 Tenn. 414, 58 S.W. 230, we held that the admission or rejection of evidence directed to a matter that has become wholly immaterial in the de......
-
Cooper & Keys v. Bell
...to see that proper and material issues, and only such, be submitted to the jury. Section 6285, Shannon's Code; Burton v. Farmers' Association, 104 Tenn. 416, 58 S. W. 230, and authorities cited. See, also, McElya v. Hill, 105 Tenn. 319, 59 S. W. 1025, Crisman v. McMurray, 107 Tenn. 469, 64 ......