Fuller v. Hamilton County

• Decision Date: 14 December 1892
• Citation: 53 F. 411
• Parties: FULLER et al. v. HAMILTON COUNTY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

53 F. 411

FULLER et al. v. HAMILTON COUNTY.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division.

December 14, 1892

Wells &amp Body, for complainants.

W. H De Witt, for defendant.

KEY District Judge.

Complainants allege in their bill of complaint that they are the tenants in common with defendant in lots 42 and 44, Walnut street Chattanooga; that they are the only children and heirs at law of Simeon Fuller, who died intestate in 1846, seised of one half fee-simple interest in said lots; that commissioners of Chattanooga, in 1839, conveyed said lots to Simeon Fuller and Moses Pressley, jointly, (brothers-in-law,) and the deed was duly recorded in the register's office of Hamilton county, in Book I, p. 399. It is averred that said half interest has never been conveyed by said Fuller, his heirs or representatives, but that Fuller held it as tenant in common with Pressley until his death, and that it is now held by complainants, nor have they been ousted therefrom, or notified of any repudiation or adverse claim or holding,--and deny that any adverse possession can be charged against them. It is alleged that the register's office of Hamilton county gives notice to the world that Fuller's interest has never passed from or been divested out of him or his heirs. It is further alleged that soon after this purchase Fuller was absent, in a distant state, and intrusted to Pressley the care and oversight of the property; that Pressley for some time faithfully discharged the duties of his trust, and Fuller confided in him during his life, but that two years before the death of Fuller, which occurred in 1844, Pressley sold his interest in said lots to M. Whitley, of Georgia, and, in betrayal of his trust, he executed a deed to said Whitley in such way as to purport to convey the entire title to the lots, and, to conceal the fact, withheld the deed from registration until 1851, a period of seven years, so that the statute of limitations might bar an action for the recovery of the interest of Fuller. It is alleged that complainant's ancestor never knew, or had means of knowledge, of this fraudulent title; that he had no suspicion of the unfaithfulness of his agent and relative, nor did complainants; that the conveyance was fraudulent, and fraudulently concealed. It is averred that nothing occurred to suggest any idea or suspicion of the fraud until 1887 when complainant John P. Fuller, in examining some old papers of Pressley, discovered the original deed to Fuller and Pressley, and, finding no deed from Fuller to Pressley, his suspicions were aroused, and led to investigation and discovery of the fraud. Defendant, it is averred, derived title under the deed to Whitley, by a series of mesne conveyances, and had record notice of Fuller's interest, and had actual notice as well. The bills asks to have complainants' interest in said lots set apart and partitioned to them separate from defendant's interest therein. This bill was filed in this court on November 1, 1892.

On the 25th March, 1891, complainants filed a bill, and on 1st March, 1892, a supplemental bill, against defendant, in the chancery court of the state, for Hamilton county, in which it is alleged that they are tenants in common with defendants in lots 42 and 44, Walnut street, in Chattanooga, in said county; that they are the only children and heirs at law of Simeon Fuller, who died in 1846, seised of an undivided one-half interest in said lots; that in 1839 the commissioners of Chattanooga conveyed said lots to said Simeon Fuller and Moses Pressley, jointly, who were brothers-in-law; that the deed was registered in the register's office in said county, in Book I, p. 399; that the title to Fuller's interest in said lots was never conveyed by him or his heirs, and has never been divested out of them in any way but remained in Fuller until his death and in complainants since. It is averred that Fuller, soon after said purchase, was absent, in the state of Texas, and, having full faith in the integrity of his brother-in-law, gave him, by an express trust, which was accepted, the oversight, care, management, and preservation of the common interest. After the death of Fuller, complainants, having full faith in their uncle, and in his fidelity as trustee, were deceived and prevented from investigating their rights, and they so continued until 1887, when, examining some old papers belonging to their uncle's estate, the deed to their father and uncle, jointly, was discovered. This led to an investigation, when the following facts, appears, i.e.: In the year 1844, two years before the death of Fuller, Pressley had sold his interest in said lots to M. Whitley, of Walton county, Ga., and in betrayal of his trust, accepted and acted upon, had fraudulently executed the deed so as to purport to convey the entire title to the lots, and that Pressley and Whitley, to conceal their fraud, and intending to cheat Fuller, and conceal the fraudulent conveyance until after his death, and until after his estate should be settled, and to allow the statute of seven years to perfect the fraudulent title, withheld the deed from registration until 1851,-- seven years after its execution, and five years after the death of Fuller; that it is recorded in Book H., vol. 1, p. 310; that the defendant, in 1875, became the owner of Pressley's interest, having record notice of complainants' title and of Pressley's fraud. It is alleged that complainants have not slept upon their rights, nor have they been guilty of laches or negligence; the discovery of their rights not having been made until 1887. They pray that they may have decreed to them their undivided one-half interest, in said lots, in severalty, from the interest of defendant. To these bills, the original and supplemental, the defendant demurred upon various grounds, including laches, the statute of limitations, want of specific reasons for the delay in asserting their claims, and other causes, less important, perhaps. April 15, 1892, the cause came on to be heard upon this demurrer before the chancellor, who decreed that 'the causes of demurrer are well taken and sustained, and the bill of complainants dismissed. ' From this decree, complainants appealed to the supreme court of the state,...