Cope v. Payne
| Decision Date | 17 October 1903 |
| Parties | COPE v. PAYNE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Bill by O. J. Cope against Frank Payne. From a decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals reversing the decree of the Chancellor in his favor, complainant appeals. Reversed.
Pritchard & Sizer, for appellant. McCroskey & Peace, for appellee.
This bill is brought to protect and quiet complainant's possession of the lands described in the pleadings, the threatened injury to his possession being the impending execution of a writ of possession, which the defendant had caused to be issued upon a judgment which he recovered in an action of unlawful entry and detainer brought by him against a tenant of complainant (no question of title is involved), which is sought to be enjoined. Morris Cope purchased the land in controversy at a tax sale made in 1897 under a decree pronounced in the case of State v. Heiskell et al., lately pending in the chancery court at Madisonville, and was placed in possession of it after confirmation of sale and vestiture of title by the sheriff of the county in the execution of a writ of possession issued in said case. Subsequently he leased the lands to William Cantrell, and then conveyed them to the complainant. Frank Payne, previous to said tax sale, was in possession under a purchase from some one, and was not a party to the case in which the sale was made at which Morris Cope purchased. In 1901, conceiving that he was not bound by the tax sale, he instituted an action of forcible and unlawful entry and detainer against Cantrell, complainant's tenant, to recover possession. The case was dismissed by the justice of the peace, and was appealed to the circuit court of Monroe county, and, Cantrell making no defense, judgment by default was entered, and upon this judgment the writ of possession sought to be enjoined was issued. Complainant knew that this action was begun before the justice of the peace, and that the justice had decided it in favor of Cantrell, but he did not know of the appeal, and was not informed of it until after the judgment by default had been taken and writ of possession had issued. He was no party to the case, and is not bound or estopped by the judgment entered in it. It is only parties and their privies who are precluded by judgments and decrees. The mere knowledge of the pendency of the suit will not have that effect. In the case of Boles v. Smith, 5 Sneed, 105 — an action of ejectment — it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boring v. Miller
...the suit and those in privity with them are bound by the judgment. Stephens v. Jack, 11 Tenn. (3 Yerg.) 403 (1832); Cope v. Payne, 111 Tenn. 128, 130, 76 S.W. 820 (1903); Harris v. Buchignani, 199 Tenn. 105, 112, 285 S.W.2d 108 (1955). In the case at bar neither the parties nor the causes o......
-
Cope v. Payne
...76 S.W. 820 111 Tenn. 128 COPE v. PAYNE. Supreme Court of Tennessee.October 17, Appeal from Chancery Court, Monroe County; T. W. McConnell, Chancellor. Bill by O. J. Cope against Frank Payne. From a decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals reversing the decree of the Chancellor in his favor,......
-
Winkler v. Winkler
...pendency of the proceedings. 22 Am. Jur. 942, sec. 46; Orthwin v. Thomas, 127 Ill. 554, 11 Am. St. Rep. 159, and Cope v. Payne, 111 Tenn. 128, 76 S. W. 820, 102 Am. St. Rep. 746. The landlord does not become a party by testifying for his tenant. Ex parte Honaker, 178 Okla. 50, 61 P.2d 702. ......
-
Taylor v. Blackwell
...the existence of the suit and assisted the employé in its defense by the employment of counsel and otherwise. In Cope v. Payne, 111 Tenn. 128, 76 S. W. 820, 102 Am. St. Rep. 746, it was held that only parties and their privies are precluded by a judgment in a matter of private right, and wh......