Patton v. Hynes

• Decision Date: 01 January 1813
• Citation: 3 Tenn. 356
• Parties: PATTON v. HYNES.
• Court: Tennessee Circuit Court

3 Tenn. 356

PATTON

v.HYNES.

Circuit Court, D. Tennessee.

1813.

This was an ejectment brought [by Patton's lessee] to recover possession of lot No. 23, in the town of Nashville. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed from the commissioners to Abednigo Llewallen, dated the 8th day of July, 1785, for the lot in question. It was then proved that Abednigo was dead; and that Shadrach Llewallen was his heir at law. A deed was exhibited from Shadrach to Francis May, dated the 30th day of August, 1810; and also a conveyance from May to the lessor of the plaintiff, dated the 31st of October, 1810. The defendant also claimed title under Abednigo Llewallen, and exhibited in proof a deed from William T. Lewis, dated in 1805; a deed from Joel Lewis to William T. Lewis, dated, in 1802; a deed from Josiah Love to Joel Lewis, dated in 1793; and a deed from John Montgomery to Josiah Love, dated in September, 1789. The defendant, and those under whom he claims, have been in possession of the lot ever since the month of February, 1793. Testimony was introduced in behalf of the defendant for the purpose of showing that Abednigo Llewallen had sold the lot to Montgomery; but it was admitted that no deed of conveyance could be produced. Testimony was also introduced, with a view of proving the deed purporting to be from Montgomery to Love a forgery.

Mr. Whiteside, for plaintiff.

Dickinson & Haywood, for defendant.

TODD, Circuit Justice (absent, McNAIRY, District Judge).

There are two questions arising in this case: First. Whether the jury have a right, from length of possession and other circumstances, to presume a deed from Llewallen to Montgomery. This is a proportion so entirely depending on matters of fact that it is difficult to give any clear and satisfactory opinion upon it. At present, however, I have no hesitation in saying that where a person has been in possession for the length of time mentioned in this case, and can also introduce circumstances to prove a sale by the original owner, it may be left to a jury to presume that there was a conveyance, and that it has been registered. But even then the chain of title in the present case would be defective, if the jury should be of opinion that the paper purporting to be a deed from Montgomery to Love is a forgery. Second. The second question arises upon the statutes of limitation. The act of 1715 [1 Scott's Laws, 14] declares that ‘no person or persons, nor their heirs, which hereafter shall have any right or title to any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall thereunto enter and make claim, but...