Hackman v. Harris
| Decision Date | 03 January 1972 |
| Citation | 225 Tenn. 645,475 S.W.2d 175,3 Pack 645 |
| Parties | , 225 Tenn. 645 Robert H. HACKMAN v. Bryant Reed HARRIS et ux., Martha Haskins Harris. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Knox Bigham, Lewisburg, for complainant-appellee.
Gerald Grizzell, Grizzell & Taylor, Shelbyville, for defendants-appellants.
Robert H. Hackman on November 5, 1969, filed his original bill against Bryant Reed Harris and his wife, Martha Haskins Harris, by which he sought the specific performance of a contract in writing by which he averred the defendants had agreed to sell him their farm in Marshall County in consideration of $25,000.00 cash. The complainant alleged that the defendants had refused to perform the contract.
After they had obtained two extensions of time the defendants filed their answer on January 5, 1970, concluding it with this sentence: 'Defendants hereby demand a jury to try the issues of fact in this cause.'
On May 29, 1970, the defendants filed proposed issues of fact with the Clerk and Master. When the cause came on for trial on June 1, 1970, the complainant objected to the empaneling of a jury on the ground that the defendants had not complied with a rule of court applicable to the Chancery Courts of the Fifth Chancery Division, which had been in effect since July 16, 1941:
'In causes where the party is entitled to a Jury, in order to make proper preparations therefor, demand must be made for a jury in the pleadings, or in open Court, on or before the first day of the term at which said cause is for trial, and at the same time file with the Master the issues which he proposes, furnishing the opposing Counsel with a copy, who shall have 5 days in which to file other issues, or objections to those filed; the Clerk & Master will then pass the file to the Chancellor who will determine the issues to be submitted to the jury, and unless both the demand and the issues are so made and entered of record, a jury trial will be conclusively deemed to be waived; provided, additional issues may be submitted at the hearing, if deemed proper and material by the Court.'
The Chancellor sustained the complainant's objection but empaneled what he designated as an 'advisory jury' to whom he submitted issues and to whom the parties submitted the evidence in the cause.
As their defense to the complainant's bill, the defendants in their answer admitted that they had signed a paper which the complainant had prepared and handed them but that the paper had not been read to them and they had not had an opportunity to read it under the circumstances and were not given a copy of it; that the signatures appearing on the paper exhibited to the bill could be the defendants' signatures but as they did not have sufficient knowledge either to admit or deny the execution of it, they denied it and demanded proof of the paper's authenticity. For their further answer the defendants said that if they had signed the exhibit, their execution of it had been obtained upon the complainant's false representation that it was a contract for the sale of only one tract owned by the defendants which they had therefore agreed to sell to the complainant for $25,000.00 and which is one of five tracts described in the bill; that the defendants at no time had agreed to sell the complainant their entire farm for $25,000.00 which is a grossly inadequate consideration for the purchase of a three hundred and forty acre farm.
After the 'advisory jury' reported that they were unable to agree upon the issues the Chancellor discharged them and entered a decree granting the complainant the relief for which he had prayed and which contained the following language:
'The Court finds that the allegations of the original bill as amended are supported by the evidence; that the Defendants were and are the owners of the realty described in the bill; that the Defendants entered into a contract in writing, signed by them and delivered to the Complainant, to convey to the Complainant for the consideration of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), good and merchantable title to said realty by general warranty deed; that the Complainant has complied with the terms of the contract but the Defendants have, without cause, failed and refused to convey title in accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp.
...they seek class certification in the following six years before they settled their suit with the defendants. In Hackman v. Harris, 225 Tenn. 645, 475 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn.1972), we confronted an analogous situation in which a local rule provided a limitation period to request a jury trial. The ......
-
Team Design v. Gottlieb
...cannot conflict with applicable statutes or generally applicable rules issued by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Hackman v. Harris, 225 Tenn. 645, 651, 475 S.W.2d 175, 177 (1972); Brown v. Daly, 884 S.W.2d 121, 123-24 (Tenn.Ct. App.1994); Pettus v. Hurst, 882 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993)......
-
Pettus v. Hurst
...the rules do not conflict with other applicable statutes or rules promulgated by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Hackman v. Harris, 225 Tenn. 645, 651, 475 S.W.2d 175, 177 (1972); Richie v. Liberty Cash Grocers, Inc., 63 Tenn.App. 311, 320-21, 471 S.W.2d 559, 563 (1971); Tenn.S.Ct.R. 18; Tenn.......
-
Hessmer v. Hessmer
...by the Tennessee Supreme Court or other substantive rules of state law. Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-2-511(1994); Hackman v. Harris, 225 Tenn. 645, 651, 475 S.W.2d 175, 177 (1972); In re Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tenn.Crim.App.1998); Pettus v. Hurst, 882 S.W.2d 783, 786 5. The or......