Spivey v. Reasoner
| Decision Date | 03 November 1950 |
| Citation | 191 Tenn. 350,233 S.W.2d 555,27 Beeler 350 |
| Parties | SPIVEY v. REASONER. 27 Beeler 350, 191 Tenn. 350, 233 S.W.2d 555 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Roy A. Miles, of Nashville, for appellant.
Paul L. Williams, James I. Vance Berry, both of Nashville, for appellee.
This suit presents a controversy between adjacent landowners as to the location of the boundary line between them. The Special Chancellor entered a decree adjudging that the true boundary was as shown in defendant's title papers and appointed, by consent of the parties, a surveyor to lay out the line, set up suitable markers, and report to the court. A final decree was then entered establishing the boundary in accordance with the surveyor's report. The complainant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
A decree was signed by solicitors for both parties, reciting that the cause had been tried in the lower court upon a stipulation of facts. The Court of Appeals transferred the cause to this Court, and this Court, finding that the record showed the cause was not one 'in which all the facts have been stipulated', Williams' Code, Sec. 10618, remanded the cause back to the Court of Appeals.
The cause was not heard below upon depositions. It was heard orally upon a stipulation of the parties 'that the case will be heard and disposed of on oral testimony of witnesses introduced in open court, and upon such documentary and other evidence as the parties may see fit to introduce.' The Chancellor's first decree recites that the cause was heard 'on the pleadings, the testimony of witnesses introduced in open court, stipulation of the parties, argument of counsel, and upon the entire record.' The final decree also recites that the cause was further heard 'upon the pleadings, the testimony of witnesses, argument of counsel and especially upon the report of the surveyor.'
There was no bill of exceptions, so the cause is before this Court only upon the technical record.
Two ways are provided by the statutes for making evidence heard on the trial of cases in chancery part of the appellate record: (1) on depositions, Williams' Code, Sec. 8967, and (2) orally, Williams' Code, Sec. 10622.
In order to obtain a review of any cause heard in the chancery court upon oral testimony it is necessary to preserve that testimony in a bill of exceptions, since evidence so heard cannot be otherwise authenticated for a review. Rose v. Brown, 176 Tenn. 429, 143 S.W.2d 303.
In the case just cited, the final decree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Felts
...presumption on appeal that the decree of the Chancellor is correct. Freeman v. Freeman, 197 Tenn. 75, 270 S.W.2d 364; Spivey v. Reasoner, 191 Tenn. 350, 233 S.W.2d 555. Since complainant has failed to prove the averments in his bill the action and decree of the Chancellor dismissing the bil......
-
Kyritsis v. Vieron
...to be correct. Freeman v. Felts, 208 Tenn. 201, 211, 344 S.W.2d 550; Freeman v. Freeman, 197 Tenn. 75, 270 S.W.2d 364; Spivey v. Reasonover, 191 Tenn. 350, 233 S.W.2d 555; and numerous other cases. We, therefore, concur in the reasoning and decision of the Chancellor denying an injunction t......
-
Dispeker v. New Southern Hotel Co.
...is correct' (italics ours). It is true that a paragraph in Mr. Justice Prewitt's opinion denying certiorari in Spivey v. Reasoner, 191 Tenn. 350, 352, 233 S.W.2d 555, 556 (1951), tends to support petitioner's contention. There, the case was heard in the Chancery Court on the pleadings, oral......
-
Elias v. Elias
...exceptions there is a conclusive presumption that the lower Court's findings and decree on this question were correct. Spivey v. Reasoner, 191 Tenn. 350, 233 S.W.2d 555. Therefore, assignment of error No. II is respectfully Assignment of error No. V complains of the award of $6,500.00 as fe......