Shackelford v. Purket

• Decision Date: 03 October 1820
• Citation: 9 Ky. 435
• Parties: William Shackelford v. E. Purket.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

9 Ky. 435

William Shackelford v. E. Purket.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 3, 1820

ON AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

Crittenden for appellant.

Bibb for appellees.

OPINION

OWSLEY JUDGE.

This was an ejectment brought by Shackelford to recover from Purket a tract of land containing about 200 acres known by the name of the Garden place, the title whereof was asserted by the former under a deed of conveyance executed by him to the latter.

The ejectment was commenced in June, 1817, and the trial had in September, 1819.

On the trial the plaintiff produced and read in evidence to the jury a deed of conveyance given to him by Purket for the land in contest, and bearing date the 13th December, 1816. The defendant then introduced evidence conducing to prove that the deed was obtained by fraud and unfair practices. The plaintiff thereupon offered in evidence the following arbitration and submission bond and award made in pursuance thereof, to wit:

" We, William Shackelford and Ephraim Purket,agree to submit all matters in dispute between us with respect to the Garden place, for which said Ephraim made a deed to said William on the 13th December, 1816, and all other land contracts and all other dealings and contracts, to the arbitration and final determination of David Maxwell, Robert W. Lewis, John Rowntree, William Smith and Robert Wallace and their award to be a final determination between the parties; and the parties not to be permitted to proceed further either in law or equity; the arbitrators to meet at the Dripping spring on Thursday next; and if any three of said arbitrators shall meet they are to decide the above controversy in place of the five, and to decide the said controversy both as to law and equity. We and each of us bind ourselves in the penalty of $5,000; and if said arbitrators shall decide in favor of said William said Ephraim shall give possession of said Garden place immediately. Witness our hands and seals this 13th day of July, 1817.

WILLIAM SHACKELFORD (seal.)

EPHRAIM PURKET (seal.)

We, the arbitrators of the within bond, after hearing the evidence for each of the within named Ephraim Purket and William Shackelford, are of opinion that Purket has produced no evidence, therefore say that said Shackelford has a complete legal and equitable title to the said 200 acres of land, the Garden place now in dispute; and that the said Purket give the said Shackelford immediate possession of the same.

ROBERT W. LEWIS,

JOHN ROWNTREE,

D MAXWELL,

ROBERT WALLACE,

We, David Maxwell, Robert Wallace, Robert W. Lewis and John Rowntree, arbitrators chosen by Wm. Shackelford and Ephraim Purket, to settle their matters in dispute concerning their land contracts, and more particularly concerning the 200 acres of land on which said Ephraim Purket now lives, called and known by the Garden place, and which was conveyed by the said Ephraim Purket to said William Shackelford on the 13th December, 1816--We, the aforesaid arbitrators, having met at the Dripping spring, at the house of David Maxwell, on Thursday the 16th of January, 1817, and after hearing the parties, Wm. Shackelford and Ephraim Purket, they being present, do award and determine that on the 13th day of December last said Ephraim Purket made a deed of conveyance for the 200 acres of land on which the said Ephraim now lives, on Sinking creek, called and known by the Garden place; and do further award and determine that said Wm. Shackelford holds the legal and equitable title to said 200 acres of land, and that Ephraim deliver said William possession of said land and premises within 10 days.

D. MAXWELL,

ROBERT WALLACE,

JOHN ROWNTREE,

ROBERT W. LEWIS,"

The defendant admitted the arbitration bond to be his act and deed, and that the award was duly made by the arbitrators, as it purports, and that he had notice and was present at the meeting of the arbitrators and making out their award; and that the tract of land called the Garden place in the deed of submission and award is the same tract of land in the deed of conveyance described, and for which this suit was brought. The plaintiff offered to prove by two witnesses present in court that in deciding the matters in reference and upon their award the arbitrators took into consideration the charges of fraud, circumvention and unfairness alleged by the defendant to have been practiced by the plaintiff in obtaining the deed of conveyance and decided thereon.

But the defendant objected as well to the submission and award going in evidence as to the introduction of witnesses to prove the arbitrators took into consideration and decided upon the fraud and circumvention alleged to have been practiced by Shackelford in obtaining the deed; and his objections...