Rhea v. White

• Decision Date: 30 September 1859
• Citation: 40 Tenn. 121
• Parties: ROBERT B. RHEA v. OWEN M. WHITE et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

40 Tenn. 121

ROBERT B. RHEA

v.OWEN M. WHITE et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1859.

FROM SULLIVAN.

At the May term, 1858, Chancellor Van Dyke presiding, a decree was pronounced in favor of the complainant. The defendants appealed.

L. C. & M. T. Haynes, for the complainant;

Nelson and Heiskell, for the defendant.

WRIGHT, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill for contribution. In the examination of this record, we have been anxious to find some ground, consistent with the rules of equity practice, upon which to relieve complainant, and our first impressions were, that we could do so. But upon a more careful inquiry into the facts and authorities of the case, we are satisfied we cannot.

The equity of contribution, arises when several persons are bound by a common charge, not arising ex delicto, and their order of liability has been accidentally deranged. If the liability be joint, he who has paid more than his share, is entitled to contribution from the rest. But this equity can never exist if the charge be not binding, or the liability arise ex delicto; for there can be no contribution between wrongdoers. The reason of this is, that they may be intimidated from committing the wrong, by the danger of each being made responsible for all the consequences. Merriweather v. Nixon, 8 T. R. 186; Peck v. Ellis, 2 J. C. R. 131.

Now what is the case stated in the bill for relief, and how do these principles apply to it? It is, simply, that in 1828, Matthew Rhea purchased of David and Samuel Hanby, a slave, Eliza, called in other portions of the record, Louisa, and afterwards, in October of the same year, died, leaving six children; that though his purchase was of the entire property, yet his title was defective, and he only, at most, acquired an estate for the life of David Hanby and others, the title to the remainder in said slave being in the children of Samuel Hanby. That this slave remained the property of the estate until the 2d of June, 1836, having in the meantime had three children, Sam, John, and James, when (the life-estate having terminated) they, with their mother Eliza, and one other slave, Charles, were divided among the above named children, and distributees, of Matthew Rhea, as their property, though at that very time, they belonged absolutely to the children of Samuel Hanby, who in the year 1843, brought suit in the Federal Court, at Knoxville, against complainant, who is one of the children of Matthew Rhea, and defendant, Owen M. White, who had married another child, for the whole of said slaves; and in October, 1851, obtained the verdict of a jury for damages to the amount of $2,550; the complainant and said White, to use the language of the bill, being thus “onerated for the joint act of the whole of the distributees with the whole value of the family of negroes.”

This verdict, upon an application for a new trial, was reduced, by a remittitur, to $2,200, for which judgment was rendered, and the whole of which, with costs, complainant has paid, the said White being unable to pay anything.

The object of the bill is to have this recovery equalized among the other five children, or their estates, so as to cause them to share the same with complainant.

The bill concedes, necessarily so, that this judgment was proper. And the record of the recovery in the Federal Court, which is an indispensable link in the complainant's testimony, shows the action to have been trover, for the wrongful conversion of the slaves, and that the trial was had upon the plea of not guilty, and the statute of limitations.

We understand this record to be evidence against the defendants, unless it be the defendant, Owen M. White, who was a party only of the fact of the judgment, and of the damages and costs recovered. 1 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 527, 538, 539; Martin v. Conles, 2 Dev. & B. 101. It does not, as against them, establish the superiority of the title of Samuel Hanty's children, and we cannot look into the depositions and other evidence in that cause, for the purpose of affecting defendants, they not being parties, and for the further reason, that these depositions and this evidence seem to be no part of the record, not having been made so by bill of exceptions, and though certified in the transcript, are no part of it. The answers of defendants call in question the title of Samuel Hanby's children, and upon strict law, it might be difficult for complainant, upon this record, to show that their recovery was warranted. But if we look into the record and proof in the case in the Federal Court, complainant will not be aided. The title of Samuel Hanby's children was of record in Patrick county, Virginia, the same having been derived by deed from David Hanby in 1825; and in the sale to Matthew Rhea, in March, 1828, and to his heirs in November of the same year, of the slave Eliza, David and Samuel Hanby were guilty of a fraudulent breach of trust, having assumed to dispose of the entire interest, when it is manifest the title to said slave was in the children of Samuel Hanby, subject only to a life-estate in David Hanby and wife. King et al. v. Sharp, 6 Humph. 55. And if we concede that Matthew Rhea, and his children, acquired the life interest of David Hanby and wife, yet, that estate ceased with the death of the longest liver, in 1834; and the division of Eliza and her increase, in ...