Spicer v. Kimes

• Decision Date: 02 August 1941
• Parties: SPICER v. KIMES et al. COPELAND v. SIDWELL et al. SIDWELL et al. v. COPELAND et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 334

156 S.W.2d 334

SPICER v. KIMES et al.

COPELAND v. SIDWELL et al.

SIDWELL et al. v. COPELAND et al.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section.

August 2, 1941.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court December 6, 1941.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Clay County; John A. Mitchell, Special Chancellor.

Consolidated suits by Ina Belle (Hutchison) Spicer against Mrs. S. P. Kimes and

others, by Mrs. Billie Copeland against Cullom Sidwell, and others, and by Cullom Sidwell and others against Ina Belle Hutchison (Mabel) Copeland, and others involving certain realty. From an adverse decree, Mrs. Billie Copeland appeals.

Affirmed.

George C. Bertram, of Byrdstown, for appellant Mrs. Copeland.

Tony Maxey and Reneau & Reneau, all of Celina, for appellees.

CROWNOVER, Presiding Judge.

These three causes were consolidated in the Chancery Court, as the same property is involved in each suit.

The original bill in the first named cause was filed by the complainant Mrs. Spicer (afterward Mrs. Copeland) for the construction of the will of A. M. Kimes, deceased; for a declaratory judgment, declaring the rights and interests of the legatees and devisees under the will; and for an injunction to prevent waste and for a decree for damages for waste.

Mrs. Spicer, the complainant, contended that she was devised, under the will, the remainder estate in A. M. Kimes' property after the death of Mrs. Kimes.

The will of A. M. Kimes is as follows:

"Last Will and Testament of A. M. Kimes

"I, A. M. Kimes of the 4th. civil district of Clay County, Tennessee, do make and publish this as my last will and testament,

"First: I direct that my funeral expenses and my debts be paid as soon after my death as possible out of any moneys that I may die possessed of or may first come into the hands of my executor.

"Secondly: I give and bequeath to my wife, S. P. Kimes, all of my real estate, consisting of 4 tracts of land all being in Clay County, Tenn. 1st. tract, being the tract upon which we now live lying on Ashborns Creek and bounded on the North by Moredock, West by Thrasher, on the South by Heard heirs, East by Ashborns Creek,

"2nd. tract, bounded on the North by Nolans, on the West by Widow More tract, on the South by Rosco Melton, on the East by Bill Huffer,

"3rd. tract, bounded on the North by Melton and Cyphers, on the West by Cyphers, on the South by Sidewell heirs, on the East by Maxfield,

"4th. tract, bounded on the North by Tom Melton, on the West by Ash Thicket road, on the South by George Cyphers, on East by Melton, and for further reference to all four of the above tracts, reference is hear made to deeds I have to same. The home tract lying on Ashborns Creek not to be sold unless it be in the case of necessity, or in exchange for other lands and then, in that case my wife S. P. Kimes may sell said tract, and if not so sold as above stated, said land at the death of my wife S. P. Kimes is to go to and belong to Ina Belle Mabell Hutchison the girl we raised and to her bodily heirs only and not to be sold.

"Thirdly: I direct that my wife S. P. Kimes have all of my personal property after all of my debts is paid as above stated and I direct that my wife S. P. Kimes collect all debts owing to me of every kind and make any disposition of the same that see fit and if there be any left at her death the same is to go to Ina Belle Mabell Hutchison the girl we raised and I hereby nominate and appoint my wife S. P. Kimes, my executor of this will which is to remain in full force so long as she is my widow.

"Dated this the 9 day of Jan. 1915.

                                        "A. M. Kimes
                

"Signed in presence of us. "A. A. Stanford "L. L. Maxfield"

Mrs. S. P. Kimes, the widow of A. M. Kimes, filed a demurrer and an answer alleging: (1) That she took a fee simple title, under the will, to all the property. (2) That the title to all the real property, except a 2-acre tract, had been held by A. M. Kimes and herself as tenants by the entireties, therefore she took title by survivorship and not under the will, except as to the 2-acre tract, to which she took a fee simple title under the will. And she alleged that she was the sole owner of all the estate of A. M. Kimes, deceased.

Mrs. Kimes died on July 26, 1939.

Some time later an original bill was filed suggesting her death and the cause was revived against her heirs at law.

The complainant, in 1940, filed an amended bill, alleging that the deeds under which Mrs. Kimes claimed title to two tracts of the land, of 300 acres and 430 acres, were void for the following reasons: The lands were sold by the Court and purchased by A. M. Kimes, and decrees were entered vesting title in him. Some time later he requested the Court to order deeds made to himself and wife, which was done. It is contended that the fee simple titles were in A. M. Kimes, and the deeds, made at other terms of the court, were void. It is charged in the amended bill that Mrs. S. P. Kimes had executed a deed conveying all said lands to her two brothers, Cullom Sidwell and J. E. Sidwell, for the consideration of $10 and love and affection; and that said deed was executed for the purpose of defeating complainant's claim to said lands; and that Mrs. Kimes was estopped from claiming that complainant had no interest in the property by reason of having recognized her interest in a law suit involving a right of way through the property. It was prayed that the deeds to Kimes and wife be declared void as clouds upon the complainant's title and set aside, and that the deed from Mrs. Kimes to the Sidwells be cancelled and set aside as a fraud upon her.

The defendants Sidwell answered and denied that the complainant had any title to the property. They pleaded estoppel, in that A. M. Kimes asked the County Court, and caused it, to make deeds to him and his wife as tenants by the entireties. They also pleaded the statutes of seven and thirty years' adverse possession and laches.

Later the Sidwells filed a bill to enjoin Mrs. Copeland from cutting timber on the land. She answered, admitted that she had cut timber, and insisted that she had a right to do so as she was the owner of the land.

Later Mrs. Billie Copeland filed an answer as a cross-bill and attacked the deed from Mrs. Kimes to the Sidwells, alleging that it was fraudulent and void, and that it was made for the purpose of defeating her rights in the property, and that the consideration was so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.

The Sidwells answered that Mrs. Kimes claimed under the deeds and not under the will, and therefore the consideration stated in the deed was immaterial.

The Chancellor found and decreed that A. M. Kimes and Mrs. S. P. Kimes held all said lands except the 2-acre tract as tenants by the entireties; that the complainant could not attack said deeds executed and registered in 1906; that the will of A. M. Kimes devised to Mrs. S. P. Kimes a fee simple title to the 2-acre tract of land and bequeathed all the personal estate to her; that the deed to the Sidwells was valid; and he dismissed the complainant's bill and cross-bill at her cost.

He sustained the complainants Sidwell's bill against Mrs. Copeland to enjoin her from cutting timber on said lands and made the injunction perpetual.

Mrs. Copeland excepted to said decree and appealed to this court and has assigned errors, which raise the following determinative questions: (1) Are the Court deeds, of 1906, to Mr. and Mrs. Kimes, valid, and is Mrs. Copeland estopped to attack said deeds? (2) Did Mrs. Kimes take a fee simple title to the 2-acre tract under the will?

A. M. Kimes and wife, Mrs. S. P. Kimes, took the complainant, Ina Bell Huddleston, to raise, in 1902, when she was about 8 months old. She lived with them until she was married in 1915, but was never...