Rose v. Brown
| Decision Date | 05 October 1940 |
| Parties | ROSE v. BROWN et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Roane County; J. H. Wallace, Chancellor.
Proceeding by Charles M. Rose against J. O. Brown and others, wherein upon the cross-bill of Miller Motor Company the chancellor set aside a conveyance of land which J. O. Brown fraudulently conveyed to his wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Brown appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the chancellor's decree. On petition to Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Petition denied.
R. H Ward, of Kingston, for complainant.
Tindell & Tindell, of Kingston, for defendant.
Upon the cross bill of the Miller Motor Company, the chancellor set aside a conveyance of a tract of land which J. O. Brown fraudulently conveyed to his wife, Ollie Brown. Mr. and Mrs Brown prosecuted an appeal to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the decree of the chancellor without considering the cause upon its merits for the reason that it affirmatively appeared in the bill of exceptions that it did not contain all the evidence.
The final decree recites that the cause was heard upon the pleadings and "stipulation of facts, depositions on file, and oral testimony of witnesses examined in open court and the entire record at large."
The cause was not heard in compliance with Chapter 119, Public Acts of 1917, Code, section 10564, but was tried irregularly so that a motion for a new trial was necessary. Fonville v. Gregory, 162 Tenn. 294, 302, 36 S.W.2d 900. But no such motion was made, and such omission was made the predicate of a motion in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. Without passing upon that motion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree of the chancellor for the reason heretofore stated. The Miller Motor Company did not file a petition for writ of certiorai, so that we cannot reverse the decree of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the appeal for failure to enter a motion for a new trial.
In Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 166 Tenn. 498, 506, 63 S.W.2d 668, 671, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barretsville Bank & Trust Co. v. Bolton
... ... 1939, that therefore, such construction is conclusive upon ... In ... support of this petitioner cites Rose v. Brown, 176 ... Tenn. 429, 143 S.W.2d 303, and Independent Life Ins. Co ... v. Hunter, 166 Tenn. 498, 63 S.W.2d 668. We think that ... neither ... ...
-
Carmack v. Fidelity-Bankers Trust Co.
... ... the decree was sustained by the evidence. This is the general ... rule (see Morrell v. Fire Ins. Co., 168 Tenn. 137, ... 76 S.W.2d 317, Rose v. Brown et al., 176 Tenn. 429, ... 143 S.W.2d 303), to which, however, an exception applies when ... the question is the reasonableness of an ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Conasauga River Lumber Co.
...The case of Rose v. Brown, et al., 176 Tenn. 429, 143 S.W.2d 303, decided by the Supreme Court on October 5, 1940 is cited in support. In the Rose case an appeal was perfected from a decree based oral testimony as well as depositions and a stipulation of counsel. In this case no oral testim......
-
La Font v. Robison
...follows from the language of the statutes which created the Court of Civil Appeals and the Court of Appeals.' See also Rose v. Brown, 176 Tenn. 429, 143 S.W.2d 303, and Barretville Bank & Trust Co. v. Bolton, 182 Tenn. 364, 377, 187 S.W.2d Therefore, the foregoing decisions are conclusive a......