Coffee v. Ruffin

Decision Date30 November 1867
Citation44 Tenn. 487
PartiesJohn D. Coffee and Wife et al. v. J. D. Ruffin, Ex'r, et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

FROM MEMPHIS.

This cause was heard at the November Term, 1866, of the Chancery Court at Memphis, before Chancellor WILLIAM M. SMITH, who pronounced a decree in the cause, from which both parties appealed to this Court.

W. Y. C. HUMES, W. L. SCOTT & HENRY CRAFT, for Complainants.

E. M. YERGER, B. M. ESTIS, HOWELL E. JACKSON, JOHN SALE and FOUT, for Respondents.

HAWKINS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The substantial facts in this case, as I have been able to gather them from a confused, imperfect, and in some instances, wholly illegible record, seem to be these: Wm. Ruffin, Sr., died in July, 1857, after having made and published his last Will and testament, which was admitted to probate in the County Court of Shelby County, at the August Term, 1857, and which contains the following clauses, to-wit:

“Item 1st. It is my will and desire that my Executor, hereinafter made and named, shall pay all my just debts; and for the purpose of enabling him to do so, and to carry out the other provisions of this, my Will, I hereby authorize him to sell any and all of my estate, real, personal or mixed, either at public or private sale, on such terms as he may think proper; and hereby empower him to make any and all conveyances of the same, as fully and completely as though I were living and making the same in my own proper person.”

By the second clause, the testator directs that the property which he had before given to his son, James D. Ruffin, and to his daughter, Mary E. Tucker, should not be computed or taken into the account of his estate by his Executor.

By the third clause he gives to his son, James D., a certain family of negroes, which he had before that time sent to him.

The fourth clause is as follows, to-wit:

“It is my will and desire, that, after the foregoing provisions of this, my Will, shall be carried out and accomplished, that my Executor will make an equal division of my remaining estate, of every kind, nature and description. One-half of which I give and bequeath unto my son, James D. Ruffin, and his heirs, forever. I give and bequeath the other remaining half of my estate as follows: To my granddaughter, Margaret B. Anthony, formerly Margaret B. Tucker, I give the sum of five hundred dollars; to my grandson, William W. Tucker, the sum of five hundred dollars; to my grandson, A. F. Tucker, Jr., the sum of five hundred dollars; and the residue of the half of my estate, not given to my grandchildren as above, I give and bequeath to my granddaughters, Sally R. Tucker, Mary E. Tucker and Agnes W. Tucker, share and share alike. That part of my estate given to my grandchildren under this item of my Will, shall be paid over or given at such times and in such manner as my Executor may deem most proper and beneficial to the respective parties.”

The fifth clause is as follows, to-wit: “Should my Executor deem it most to the interest of my grandchildren above named, he may invest the amount that may be set apart to them, respectively, in such manner as he may, in his judgment, think mostly to their interest. I give and vest in my said Executor, full, complete and ample discretion in the settlement of my affairs, and with full powers to do every thing he may deem most proper for the interest of the parties concerned.”

By the sixth clause, the testator appoints his son, James D. Ruffin, Executor of said Will, in whom he says: “I have the most unwavering confidence, both as to judgment, discretion and fidelity:” and directs that no surety be required of him for the performance of his duties.

James D. Ruffin qualified and took upon himself the execution of the Will. The testator was the owner, at the time of his death, of a large estate, consisting, mostly, of certain town lots in the City of Memphis; some of which had valuable improvements upon them, while others were vacant and unimproved; stock in the Memphis Theater, the Elmwood Cemetery, and in the Memphis Gas-light Company, and some money. All of which the Executor took into his possession immediately after his qualification.

The testator was largely indebted at the time of his death.

At some time afterward, but when, does not appear, but probably early in 1861, some sort of proceedings were instituted in the County Court of Shelby County, by the Executor, for the partition of the real estate of the testator; Commissioners were appointed, who, in March or April, 1861, as appears from a paper filed in this cause, attempted to make said partition; one of the Commissioners having died, the two survivors, on the 9th of February, 1866, nearly five years after their appointment, made out and signed a paper, purporting to be the action of said Commissioners, which has never been confirmed, and upon which no action, whatever, seems to have been taken.

But, from this paper, it appears, that said Commissioners allotted to James D. Ruffin, one lot on the corner of Shelby and Vance streets, in Memphis, valued at $10,000; also, one lot on the corner of Main and Vance streets, in Memphis, valued at $7,500, making in the aggregate, $17,500.

To Sallie R. Coffee, formerly Sallie R. Tucker, and who, in the meantime, had intermarried with John D. Coffee, one lot on Exchange street, in Memphis, valued at $2,000; also, one lot on Lauderdale street, valued at $3,000, making in the aggregate $5,000.

To Mary E., and Agnes W. Tucker, certain lots on Main and Elliott streets, valued at $7,500, and $250 of stock in the Memphis theater.

And to Margaret B. Anthony, Wm. W. Tucker, and A. J. Tucker, Jr., they allotted $1,500 of stock in the Elmwood Cemetery, in payment or satisfaction of the special legacies due them under the Will.

According to the estimate of the Commissioners, made in 1861, the whole real estate which they attemped to partition, amounted, in the aggregate, to the sum of $31,750; immediately after this attempted partition, Jas. D. Ruffin took possession, for himself, of the lots allotted to him, they being the only lots belonging to the estate of the testator yielding any income of consequence; and he has thus held and claimed and occupied them up to the time of filing this bill.

On the 4th of October, 1859, the defendant, William Ruffin, who is the son of the defendant, James D. Ruffin, sold to John D. Coffee, the husband of the complainant, Sallie R., a tract of land in Panola County, Mississippi, at the price of $6,000, for the payment of which, Coffee executed his four notes for the sum of $1,500 each, due, respectively, at one, two, three and four years.On the 22d of March, 1861, none of said purchase money having been paid, Coffee and wife, acting under the impression that said attempted partition, (and in which, the lots on Exchange street and Lauderdale street had been allotted to Mrs. Coffee,) was effectual and valid entered into an agreement with William Ruffin, by which it was attempted to substitute the wife to the rights of the husband, in said lands in Mississippi, upon the payment, by her, of the purchase money, or its equivalent, due from the husband to his vendor; and, in pursuance of this agreement, Coffee and wife addressed the following note to James D. Ruffin, to-wit:

Home, March 22d, 1861.

Col. James D. Ruffin, Executor of Wm. Ruffin, deceased:

Dear Sir:--Please transfer to William Ruffin, Jr., the Exchange street property, valued at $2,000, and the Lauderdale street property, valued at $3,000, as apportioned to Sallie R. Coffee, for value received of him in land, it being part of S. 33, T. 6, and R. 8, West, which land he has legally obligated himself to transfer to Sallie R. Coffee, as soon as he can get the deed from DeWitt. Do this, and this shall be your receipt for $5,000, (five thousand dollars,) in part of my distributive share in my grandfather's estate.

Sallie R. Coffee.

John D. Coffee.

This letter or order, as it is called in argument, was delivered by Wm. Ruflin to his father, who, on the same day, indorsed thereon, “accepted with the within provisions, March 22d, 1861.

James D. Ruffin, Ex'r of Wm. Ruffin.

At the time of entering into this agreement, Wm. Ruffin executed a title bond to Mrs. Coffee, which, after reciting the facts of the sale of said land in Mississippi, by Wm. Ruffin to John D. Coffee, and the terms thereof, the execution of a title bond by Ruffin to Coffee, and the notes for the payment of the purchase money further recites, “and whereas, the said notes have been fully paid, with interest due thereon, by the aforementioned Sallie R. Coffee.” * * * “The receipt of which money is hereby acknowledged, from the said Sallie R. Coffee.” This title bond then further recites that the title bond given by Ruffin to John D. Coffee had been delivered ?? Ruffin; that he had transferred two of the notes given for the purchase money by Coffee; and by the terms of the bond of March 22, 1861, Ruffin binds himself, in the penalty of ten thousand dollars, to make to Sallie R. Coffee a title to said land, by the 1st of January, 1862. He further obligates himself to pay off and deliver to John D. Coffee, said two notes, transferred as before stated. Immediately after the purchase by Coffee, he took possession of said land, and afterwards, in 1860, expended large sums of money in the erection of valuable improvements thereon.

On the 9th of June, 1862, Wm. Ruffin, by deed of that date, in which his wife joined, conveyed said lands to Sallie R. Coffee, in consideration, as is recited in the deed, of said lots in the City of Memphis, allotted to Sallie R. Coffee, as before stated.

On the 10th day of January, 1866, Coffee and wife sold said tract of land to one Thompson in consideration of which, Thompson agreed to pay Sallie R. Coffee, $1,000 in cash, or in lieu thereof, four bales of cotton weighing 500 pounds each; and also, on or before the 1st day of January, 1867, to pay to her, sixty-two...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Carpenter & Carpenter, Inc. v. Kingham, 2172
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1941
    ...defendant as "trustee" does not make him so in the same sense that his acts must be for the benefit of the plaintiff. In Coffee v. Ruffin, 44 Tenn. 487, 511, 514, the recognized the fact that a person who is trustee nominally only is not bound by the same rule as a person whose duties, as t......
  • Bettendorf v. Bettendorf
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1920
    ... ... Sherratt , 28 Beavan 663; ... Edwards v. Meyrick , 2 Hare *70; Boyd v ... Hawkins , 2 Dev. [N. C.] 329, 331; Coffee v ... Ruffin , 44 Tenn. 487, 4 Cold. 487; Rose v ... Mynatt , 15 Tenn. 30, 7 Yer. 30; Kisling v ... Shaw , 33 Cal. 425; Rubidoex v. Parks , ... ...
  • American Bank & Trust Co. v. Lebanon Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • August 25, 1945
    ... ... Latimer, 1832, 11 Tenn. 537; Marshall v ... Stephens, 1847, 27 Tenn. 159, 47 Am.Dec. 601; Leiper ... v. Ransom, 1865, 42 Tenn. 511; Coffee v ... Ruffin, 1867, 44 Tenn. 487; [28 Tenn.App. 632] ... Talbot v. Provine, 1874, 66 Tenn. 502, and in such a ... case, the transaction ... ...
  • American Bank & Trust Co. v. Lebanon Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1945
    ...Latimer, 1832, 11 Tenn. 537; Marshall v. Stephens, 1847, 27 Tenn. 159, 47 Am.Dec. 601; Leiper v. Ransom, 1865, 42 Tenn. 511; Coffee v. Ruffin, 1867, 44 Tenn. 487; Talbot v. Provine, 1874, 66 Tenn. 502, and in such a case, the transaction cannot be impeached, by the owner of a subordinate, c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT