King v. Pillow

• Decision Date: 30 May 1891
• Citation: 16 S.W. 469
• Parties: KING v. PILLOW.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

16 S.W. 469

KING v. PILLOW.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 30, 1891.

Appeal from chancery court, Shelby county; B. M. ESTES, Chancellor.

W. G. Weatherford and T. W. Brown, for appellant. Poston & Poston and T. P. Chambers, for appellee.

TURNEY, C. J.

In a proceeding in the chancery court at Memphis, between these parties, Mrs. Pillow filed a cross-bill to set up a deed made to her to a tract of land in Lea county, Ark., which she alleges was, after its execution and delivery, destroyed by King. Objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court to make decree affecting title to lands in another state. After full proof, the chancellor at the hearing dismissed the cross-bill upon the ground that he was without jurisdiction. In this, we think, he erred. In Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148, Chief Justice MARSHALL states the rule: "The court is of opinion that in cases of fraud, of trust, and of contract the jurisdiction of a court of chancery is sustainable wherever the person is found, although lands not within the jurisdiction of the court may be affected by the decree." Other authors say: "Rights growing out of trust or contract, founded upon a fraudulent violation of the principles of equity, as between man and man are purely personal, and will consequently be upheld and enforced, both at law and in equity, wherever jurisdiction has been acquired over the parties, without regard to the nature or situation of the property in which the controversy had its origin, and even where the relief sought consists in a decree for the conveyance of land which lies beyond the control of the court, and can only be reached through the exercise of its power over the person." The charge of the bill is to the effect that King, after the execution and delivery of the deed, destroyed it,—burned it. The charge makes the act of King a fraud upon the rights of Mrs. Pillow. If he obtained the possession of the deed from Mrs. Pillow or her agent by any means, he held it in trust for her. If he afterwards determined to and did destroy it, he was guilty of actual fraud, and a breach of a direct trust. Under such facts, the rights of Mrs. Pillow not only grow out of a trust, but are founded upon a fraudulent violation of the principles of equity; and a court of equity, having jurisdiction of the person of King, will, if the case made by the bill is sustained by the proof, compel him to correct the wrong, carry out his trust, and remove the cloud he has placed upon her...