Fisher v. Edington

• Decision Date: 21 September 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 499,85 Tenn. 23
• Parties: FISHER and others v. EDINGTON and others.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

1 S.W. 499

85 Tenn. 23

FISHER and others v. EDINGTON and others.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September 21, 1886

Appeal from chancery court, Knox county.

James Comfert, for complainants. Webb & McClung, R. N. Hood, and Henderson & Joroulman, for respondents.

CALDWELL J.

This is an ejectment bill in equity. At a former term of this court complainants were allowed a recovery, and the cause was remanded to chancery court of Knox county, for an account with the several defendants as to rents and profits improvements, tolls, etc. 12 Lea, 189. The cause is here now upon certain exceptions to the report of the master. These exceptions relate to four different parcels of the land. Numerous witnesses were examined by both sides upon the matter of account, and there is great conflict in their evidence. Many of those who put the highest estimate on the improvements were contractors and house builders. Some of them testified with reference to the value of the improvements themselves, and not with respect to the enhancement of the value of the land by reason of the improvements. The evidence of this latter class of witnesses does not reflect any light upon the point under investigation, and should therefore have been entirely disregarded by the master and the chancellor. Again, by the establishment of the exact lines, it is shown that the improvements on some of the small tracts are so situated as not to admit of ingress and egress in front of them, unless a right of way should be procured over the property of adjoining land-owners. Manifestly, such improvements cannot enhance the value of the land so much as if they were situated upon different and more desirable locations. Yet the location of the improvements was brought to the attention of only a part of the witnesses. Those who deposed with reference to the location placed lower estimates upon the improvements than those who did not consider the location. Beyond question, the evidence of the former class should be given the greater, if not the controlling, influence and weight in making up the account.

Now giving the evidence the effect indicated, we think the report and decree below should be so modified as to allow the following amounts for improvements, viz.: To James P. Ford $450; to William Sims, $325; to Joseph M. Ford, $6.50; to W H. Edington, $1,000. There should also be modifications to the extent of charging the James P. Ford place with $80 per...