Fowler v. Tankersley
| Citation | 222 S.W.2d 395,32 Tenn.App. 264 |
| Parties | FOWLER v. TANKERSLEY. |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1946 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court February 3, 1947. [*]
Grady Fowler brought a Bill in Equity against W. M. Tankersley to remove a cloud from the title to a tract of land on the ground that a decree in a previous proceeding ordering the land sold to satisfy delinquent drainage assessments was void.
The Obion Chancery Court, Obion County, Herron Chancellor, held the decree of sale void and granted the relief prayed for in the bill and the defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Anderson, Presiding J. reversed the decree on the ground that plaintiff was estopped from denying the validity of the defendant's title.
J. W. Rankin, Martin, for complainant.
N. P Moss, Jackson, J. L. Fry, Union City, Tipton & Tipton Covington, Holmes & Holmes, Trenton, for defendant.
This bill was filed to remove a cloud from the title to a tract of 84 acres of land lying in the Ruthorford Fork Drainage District. In another proceeding instituted for that purpose it was ordered sold to satisfy delinquent drainage assessments. At this sale the defendant, C. H. Little, became the purchaser. Subsequently he conveyed it to defendant Tankersley for a valuable consideration. The basis of the present suit is the charge that the decree in the other proceeding ordering the sale was void. The defendants aver the contrary, and moreover assert that as against the defendant, Tankersley, the complainant is equitable estopped to claim title to the land. The chancellor held the decree of sale void and accordingly granted the relief prayed for in the bill. The defendants appealed.
Upon the hearing this case was consolidated with that of Cooper v Little. [1] However, the record in each case was sent up in a different transcript. They should have been in the same transcript.
Since we regard the defense of equitable estoppel as determinative we need not consider in the present case the questions raised with respect to the validity of the sale ordered in the proceeding instituted to collect the delinquent drainage assessments.
On May 30, 1935, a suit was filed in the chancery court of Obion County for the purpose of enforcing liens on several tracts of land securing the assessments made in the proceeding establishing the Rutherford Fork Drainage District. Among the tracts involved in that case was one numbered 25, then owned by the complainant Grady Fowler, who was named defendant in the proceeding. He made no defense and allowed a pro confesso to be taken against him. This was followed by an order of sale entered at the April Term, 1936. The order was not executed until the 19th day of March, 1940. On the latter date it was offered for sale pursuant to the order and struck off to C. H. Little for the sum of $1100.00, which was paid in cash. On April 3, 1940, a decree was passed confirming the report of sale and divesting title out of Fowler and vesting it in C. H. Little as purchaser. On October 26, 1943, Little for a consideration of $2000.00, of which $1000.00 was paid in cash and the remainder evidenced by two notes, each in the sum of $500.00, conveyed the tract to the defendant Tankersley by special warranty deed. Following his purchase the defendant, Tankersley, went into possession, and without objection on the part of the complainant, who knew of the fact, made improvements on the land to the value of $401.30.
The drainage district was organized in 1914, the assessments being spread over a period of 20 years. The first was due in 1915 and the last in 1934. The sale in the other proceeding was to satisfy the assessments for the years 1928 to 1934 inclusive, which aggregated $770.28, and was subject to the right of redemption. This, together with interest from the date of the sale and attorney's fees allowed by statute, made a total of $1067.60 outstanding against the tract at the time the sale was confirmed.
The bill in the present case was not filed until August 16, 1945.
The complainant and defendant were neighbors and friends of long standing. According to the evidence in the present case the tract was put up for sale twice for the purpose of satisfying the lien of the drainage assessments. Apparently the first sale was not confirmed and the second sale resulted.
The fact that the land was to be sold came to the notice of the defendant Tankersley. Just prior to the second sale he called upon his neighbor, Fowler, and asked him if he was going to do anything about the matter, indicating that if he was not, that he, Tankersley, might be interested in purchasing it. Fowler replied that 'he thought he might come up here and bid it in if it didn't sell too high', but that if he, Tankersley, wanted to buy it, to 'come ahead and bid on it.' Tankersley told him that he would not do that because he was unwilling to bid against a friend and neighbor; that if Fowler was going to make an effort to rescue his land he, Tankersley, would have nothing to do with the matter.
In this situation Tankersley did not attend the sale and dropped all idea of buying the land. So far as appears, Fowler did not attend the sale either, and made no bid on it, with the result that it was sold to Little. After the sale Fowler negotiated with Little for the purchase of the land and went so far as to make a bid on it, but it seems that nothing came of this. Fowler testifies that in the fall before Tankersley bought the tract from Little he told Tankersley about the bid he had made to Little, and also that he 'wasn't going to redeem the land at the price', evidently referring to the amount required by statute to redeem. Fowler admits that in discussing the matter with Tankersley he made no claim to the land after it had been bought by Little.
In the course of conversations before Tankersley purchased from Little, Fowler convinced the former that he thought the land was not worth the amount it would take to redeem it, and that he was 'done with it for good.'
Moreover, following the sale, the complainant allowed Little, and later the defendant, to go into possession of the land, and otherwise use it as their own, without making any claim thereto, notwithstanding that under Code Section 4361 he had a right to continue in possession and was entitled to the rents and profits until the expiration of the period of two years from the date of the confirmation of the sale allowed for redemption, thus corroborating his representation to the defendant that he was no longer interested in the property. Being convinced of this fact by the complainant's conduct and representations and relying thereon, Tankersley entered into negotiations with Little for the purchase of the land, with the result already stated. It also appears that the defendant could have bought the land originally at $600.00 or $700.00 less than he eventually paid for it had it not been that he was unwilling to bargain for it, until fully convinced that his friend Fowler was no longer interested in redeeming it.
After Tankersley had purchased from Little, Fowler told him that he had 'brought it mighty high but if things stayed up a few years I wouldn't be hurt so bad.' As said, in none of his numerous conversations with Tankersley did Fowler ever make any claim to the property following the sale to Little. Upon the contrary, the undisputed evidence is that he led Tankersley to believe that he had no further interest in it whatever for the reason that he did not regard the land as being worth the amount of the assessments or the amount it would take to redeem it.
In granting the relief sought by the complainant, the chancellor did not require that the defendant be reimbursed for the amount of his outlay. However, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial