Cheatham v. Allen
| Decision Date | 16 June 1951 |
| Citation | 241 S.W.2d 559,28 Beeler 535,192 Tenn. 535 |
| Parties | CHEATHAM et al. v. ALLEN et al. 28 Beeler 535, 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
E. H. Lannom, Union City, John M. Drane, Newbern, for complainant.
H. H. Lannom, Louisville, Ky., Holmes & Holmes, Trenton, Robert D. Fry and Miles & Miles, all of Union City, for defendant.
A bill was filed herein by complainant, Sarah Louise Cheatham et al., against Martha Foulks Allen et al., seeking to establish title to an interest in certain lands in Obion County. The Chancellor overruled all grounds of several demurrers filed.
In 1906, J. M. Foulks and wife conveyed to two of their sons, Leon and Jim Foulks, by three deeds made Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 to the bill, the lands in controversy. The question presented here rises out of the language contained in said deeds.
Exhibit 2, in part, is as follows:
'* * * do sell and convey to Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks, the following described tract of land, being located in the 16th Civil District of Obion County, Tennessee, and bounded and described as follows: (Description) The land above described is to be and remain the property of the said Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks their life time and then to their heirs and if either should die leaving no issue or legal heirs, then to revert back or go to the J. M. Foulks estate.
'To have and to hold with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging unto the said Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks, and their heirs forever * * *.'
Exhibit 3, in part, is as follows.
'* * * do sell and convey to Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks the following tract or parcel of land * * * (Description)
'To remain the property of Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks their lifetime and if either dies without issue to go back to J. M. Foulks estate.
'To have and to hold with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging unto the said Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks and their heirs as above, forever.'
J. M. Foulks, the original grantor, died in 1907, leaving surviving as his only children and heirs at law, J. A. (Archie) Foulks, Mrs. Sallie Owens, Leon Foulks, Jim Foulks, Mrs. Sim Weaver, Mrs. Martha Foulks Allen and C. T. Foulks.
Jim Foulks died intestate in the year 1925, never having married and leaving no child or descendant, his only heirs at law being his brothers and sisters named above as the children of J. M. Foulks.
In 1926 and 1927 it was decreed in a Chancery proceeding in Obion County that Leon Foulks and Jim Foulks each were the owners of a one-half divided interest in fee in the lands involved; that it was the desire of all the parties in said cause that the lands be divided; that one-half be set apart to Leon Foulks and that the remainder be sold for division of proceeds among the heirs of Jim Foulks.
By further decree, commissioners were appointed and certain portions of the lands in controversy were set apart to Leon Foulks, title in fee vested in him, and divested out of all parties to the cause.
By further order, the other portion of said land was sold and confirmed to Z. W. Corum, title in fee vested in him and divested out of all parties to the cause.
It appears that every heir at law of J. M. Foulks, of Jim Foulks and every person who, at that time, would have been an heir at law of Leon Foulks, were a party to said proceedings, consented to the division and sale and shared in the division of proceeds.
Leon Foulks died testate in the year 1945, never having married and leaving no child nor descendant of child. By various deeds and by his will, title to the portion of the land set apart to him passed to various defendants.
Archie Foulks died in 1939, leaving as his children and heirs at law the complainants herein, who are claiming jointly a one-fifth interest in the land.
Complai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boring v. Miller
...is an absolute bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties and their privies upon the same cause of action. Cheatham v. Allen, 192 Tenn. 535, 539, 241 S.W.2d 559 (1951); Polsky v. Atkins, 197 Tenn. 201, 206, 270 S.W.2d 497 (1954); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 198 Tenn. 665, 667-668, 281 S.W.......
-
Cole v. Windle
...Melton v. Pace, 103 Tenn. 484, 53 S.W. 939.' Supra, p. 376, 183 S.W. p. 1006 The material and determinative facts in Cheatham v. Allen (1951), 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559, and Rankin v. Black (1858), 38 Tenn. 650, both of which cases are cited by defendant, are not analagous to the facts ......
-
Hendrix v. Yancey
...in Tennessee that a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties and their privies. Cheatham v. Allen (1951) 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559. Also it is clearly the rule that parties will be estopped to question a boundary line established by agreement even th......
-
Aclin v. Speight
...That construction is now final. The parties thereto and their privies are estopped to relitigate the matter. Cheatham v. Allen, (1951) 192 Tenn. 535, 241 S.W.2d 559; Cantrell v. Burnette & Henderson Co., (1948) 187 Tenn. 552, 216 S.W.2d All of the necessary parties then in existence were pa......