Royston v. Wear

• Decision Date: 30 September 1859
• Citation: 40 Tenn. 8
• Parties: M. T. C. ROYSTON et al. v. JAMES D. WEAR et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

40 Tenn. 8

M. T. C. ROYSTON et al.

v.JAMES D. WEAR et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1859.

FROM GREENE.

This cause was tried at the June term, 1859, of the Circuit Court, Patterson, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed.

Nelson, and T. D. & R. Arnold, for the plaintiffs in error; Milligan, Maxwell and Deadrick, for the defendants in error.

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

This is an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiffs below insist they have shown a title in themselves to the land in dispute in two modes: First, by a regular chain of conveyances from the State; and next, by placing the defendants in such an attitude, in relation to this land, toward themselves, as that they are estopped to deny their title.

The facts upon the question of estoppel are these: Adam Dunwoody, at a very early day, resided upon the land for several years, and died, leaving four children, to wit: William, James, Margaret and Esther. Previous to his death he made a will, dated the 11th of June, 1794, in which he devised this land to his son William. William died intestate, unmarried and without issue, and the land descended to his sisters Margaret and Esther, and to his brother James, as his heirs at law. Esther married John Bonham; and Margaret, on the 19th of December, 1810, married Hugh Wear. On the 12th of October, 1816, the said Bonham, Hugh Wear and James Dunwoody, for the consideration of $1,140, conveyed this land by deed in fee simple, with covenants of general warranty, to Joshua Royston, who, about that time, entered into possession of the land, claiming it as his own, and continued so to hold and claim it till his death; and the defendants below, the tenants in possession, who are his heirs at law, have so held and claimed ever since. This deed was duly proved at the July sessions, 1817, of the County Court of Greene county, and registered in that county on the 13th of October of the same year. In it the said Bonham, Hugh Wear and James Dunwoody, are described as the heirs of William Dunwoody, deceased, and legatees of Adam Dunwoody, deceased. Margaret, the wife of Hugh Wear, and Esther, the wife of Bonham, did not unite in said deed, and were not parties to it. The said Margaret died the 29th of March, 1825, and the said Hugh Wear, in September, 1856. The plaintiffs are the children of Hugh and Margaret Wear, and commenced this action of ejectment on the 3d of March, 1858, for the recovery of the one undivided third part of the said tract of land, as the heirs at law of their mother, the said Margaret.

So far as it may be material to this controversy, we are warranted in assuming, not only from the facts, but because the jury have so found, under proper instructions from the court, that Hugh and Margaret Wear had issue of their marriage prior to the execution of the deed to Joshua Royston.

It is true, there may be no very direct evidence that Joshua Royston held under this deed; but still the proof that he did so is very strong, and we are satisfied he did. It is not attempted to show, or pretended that he held under any other title. In addition to the fact that he took possession of this land about the date of the deed, he is proved to have stated that he had bought and lived on the land that Adam Dunwoody died on. The jury, under proper instructions from the court, have also found this matter in favor of the plaintiffs, and, we think, were well warranted in so doing. Indeed, any other conclusion would be unreasonable.

Upon these facts, we think the defendants below were estopped to deny the seizin of William Dunwoody, he being the common source of title to all the parties, and that the Circuit Judge...