Harris v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 March 1897
• Citation: 39 S.W. 343,98 Tenn. 286
• Parties: HARRIS v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

39 S.W. 343

98 Tenn. 286

HARRIS v. SMITH et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 5, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, Davidson county; Thomas H. Malone Chancellor.

Bill by Mary P. Harris, by her next friend, against M. J. Smith and others. A decree in favor of defendants was affirmed by court of chancery appeals, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Jos. H Horton, for appellant.

Bryant & Cartwright, Lellyett & Barr, C. C. Trabue, Stokes & Stokes and Hamilton Parks, for appellees.

WILKES J.

This bill is filed to recover a certain house and lot situated on the public square in Nashville, and also rents for the same while withheld from the complainant; also to remove a trustee, and appoint his successor. On hearing, the chancellor denied the relief prayed for, and dismissed the bill. The court of chancery appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor as to its results, and complainant has appealed to this court, and assigned errors.

The facts, so far as necessary to be stated, are that on the 6th of January, 1874, complainant entered into an antenuptial contract with W. Hooper Harris, which was properly registered on the 9th of January thereafter. The same instrument conveyed the property in controversy to Erwin Craighead, as trustee for complainant, to be held for her sole and separate use, and as her separate estate. Complainant, on the day after the instrument was executed, intermarried with the said W. Hooper Harris, and is now his wife. The deed of settlement or antenuptial contract before referred to contains, among other provisions, the following: "The party of the first part [meaning complainant] shall have the power and authority at any time during said marital connection to sell and dispose of the said property herein conveyed by giving directions in writing to said Erwin Craighead, trustee, and by executing a deed, signed jointly by herself and said trustee, and the proceeds of such sale shall be reinvested in other property under the same conditions and provisions as contained in this deed." On the 23d of October, 1886, complainant, being then, as now the wife of W. Hooper Harris, addressed to Erwin Craighead, the trustee, the following letter of request: "Dear Sir: You are hereby authorized and instructed by me to execute a deed in fee simple, with proper covenants, to Francis W. Williams, Alexander G. Black, and Richard P. Williams, to the lot of ground fronting 39 feet, more or less, on the western side of the public square, and at the northern corner of Deaderick street, in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, and conveyed by me to you in trust by deed recorded in Book 50, page 395, of the register's office of Davidson county, Tennessee, to which I now refer. The consideration of said deed is the sum of $10,500 in cash, paid to you in trust, and also the conveyance to you, in trust for my benefit (both upon the same terms and trust as contained in my deed to you above referred to), of certain lots in Maury and Claiborne addition to Nashville, fronting 265 feet on Maury street, and particularly described in a deed to said Williams and others, recorded in the register's office of Davidson county, Tennessee, to which you can refer for a more accurate description. Said deed is found in said office in Book 60, page 563. When you have executed said deed, send it to me, and I will sign and acknowledge same, as required by my deed in trust to you as aforesaid. Respectfully, Mary P. Harris." In obedience to the instructions in this letter, a deed to the property was prepared and executed on the 6th November, 1886, by Craighead, as trustee, and by complainant and her husband, and was duly acknowledged and registered. The letter of instructions above was made part of the deed, and registered with it. The deed recites in its body as its consideration the payment in cash of $10,500, and the conveyance of other real estate, set out in detail. The deed, in its body, also recites that the property conveyed is the same property conveyed by the trust settlement and antenuptial contract, referring to it by book and page of the register's office of Davidson county. The deed is one with covenants of general warranty as to Mrs. Harris and special limited warranty as to the trustee, Craighead. On 21st March, 1887, Williams, Black & Co. conveyed the property to James E. Caldwell for a consideration of $25,000, who afterwards conveyed to Michael, Andrew, and Christian Smith, and through them it came by direct conveyances to the present holders. The lots referred to in Maury and Claiborne's addition were conveyed to Craighead, trustee, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the marriage settlement. They were afterwards sold, and the proceeds used by the husband. Caldwell and the Smiths, as well as the trustee, Craighead, Williams, Black & Co., and the present owners and the husband are made parties to the bill, but it was afterwards dismissed without prejudice as to Caldwell. The defendants other than Harris, the husband, and Craighead, the trustee, who are the present owners of the property, set up as a defense that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, and with no notice of defects of title, and they rely upon this, and also upon the statute of limitations, coupled with adverse possession for more than seven years. The court of chancery appeals finds as additional facts that Mr. Harris was insolvent when he married, and that when the deed was made to Williams, Black & Co., he was indebted to them on speculative ventures in the sum of $22,000, and that the real consideration of the conveyance was $10,500 in cash, $4,500 in the lots specified, and the cancellation of this indebtedness, which was compromised in settlement at $10,000. The court also finds that Mrs. Harris knew the contents of the deed when it was made, and also the contents of the letter of instructions, and knew that $10,000 of the actual consideration of the transfer was the cancellation and satisfaction of her husband's debt to Williams, Black & Co. The court finds that the $10,500 cash was paid to Craighead, trustee, and he afterwards, but at what time does not appear, gave to the husband $4,500 of this amount, and that it does not appear what became of the residue. Complainant's counsel states that part of it was used in payment of taxes and other charges against the property, but the court of chancery appeals does not so find. The $4,500 was spent by the husband. The lots which were received from Williams, Black & Co. in the trade were afterwards sold and conveyed by deeds in which complainant, her husband, and her trustee all joined, and it does not appear what became of the proceeds, but there is some evidence to show that they were received and used by the husband. When the property was sold to Williams, Black & Co. it was worth $20,000. Afterwards extensive improvements to the amount of $16,000 were placed upon it by the Smiths, making the property cost them in all about $40,000. It was afterwards conveyed to Mrs. Alice Smith with general warranty of title for $36,500, and she had no notice of any claim by complainant, nor of any defect in the title. The $16,000 expended in improvements was borrowed by mortgage upon the property from the defendant insurance company. The present owners, and those under whom they claim, have had actual adverse possession since November...