Staub v. Hampton

• Citation: 101 S.W. 776,117 Tenn. 706
• Parties: STAUB ET UX. v. HAMPTON. STAUB ET UX. v. JONES ET AL.
• Decision Date: 09 March 1907
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

101 S.W. 776

117 Tenn. 706

STAUB ET UX. v. HAMPTON.

STAUB ET UX. v. JONES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 9, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Grundy County; T. M. McConnell Chancellor.

Ejectment bills by Peter Staub and wife against W. H. Hampton and against E. M. Jones and others. From judgments in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

These were ejectment bills brought to recover 5,900 acres of land lying in Grundy county, the bill in the first-named case describing the land as follows:

"5,900 acres of land lying in the Sixth and Eleventh districts of Grundy county, Tennessee, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a stake on the east boundary line of the 5,000-acre tract, entered in the name of Carrol Brown (alias Castle Brown), and forty-seven poles north of the southeast corner of said tract; thence south forty-seven poles to said southeast corner; thence west with the south boundary line of said tract, passing the southwest corner of said tract, in all 1,110 poles, to a stake; thence south 640 poles to a stake; thence east 1,450 poles to a stake thence north 687 poles to a stake; thence west 340 poles to a stake."

The bill in the second case sets out the same description, and then adds the following:

"And which is more accurately described according to a survey of Isaac Hill, in the cases of Peter Staub et al. v. W. B Byers et al. and Peter Staub et al. v. J. J. Woodlee et al. formerly pending in the chancery court at Altamont, Tennessee, as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of the said tract, it being a post oak (now dead), with pointers, about 600 yards east of a house of Hiram Nunley; thence east with a marked line 1,081 poles to a chestnut, marked as a corner; thence north 47 poles to a stake and pointers; thence east with a marked line 340 poles (the northeast corner), and by a further marked line beginning at said northwest corner; thence running south 640 poles to a stake, with pointers, running east with a marked line 1,450 poles; and thence north 695 poles to said northeast corner."

The deed under which the complainant claims describes the land as set forth in the first bill. This deed was made by the Monroe heirs, eight in number, through Massey Hill, as their attorney in fact. The Monroe heirs claimed the land under S. B. Barrell, who was the grantee from the state. Four of these heirs repudiated the action of Massey Hill, three of them on the ground that they were married women, and had no power to convey lands by power of attorney, and one of them on the ground that he did not join in the power of attorney. Accordingly, these four persons filed a bill in equity against Peter Staub, and had the deed set aside as to them. However a lien was declared in that case against the land for their proportion of the taxes paid, and also of the purchase money, and subsequently, under a decree enforcing this lien, Peter Staub became the purchaser of the interest of these parties in the land under the same description which appeared in his original deed.

The principal defendant is the Thomas Coal Company, which claims the land under certain conveyances and tax proceedings going back to the Monroe heirs.

The bills in the present case were filed, asserting title to the 5,900 acres, which is claimed both by the complainants and by the defendant Thomas Coal Company. The claims of the defendant Hampton and others in that interest were considered in the Court of Chancery Appeals; but, as no error has been assigned here on that portion of the decree, it need not be further noticed.

The substance of the controversy may be stated briefly as a claim on the part of the complainants that they own the 5,900 acres of land upon which the Thomas Coal Company has entered, and that it falls within the terms of their deed, when that deed is rightly understood and considered, in relation to the survey laid down upon the ground at the time the transaction was entered into between the complainants, or complainant Peter Staub and the Monroe heirs, and on the part of the defendants that the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry lies far to the north of the 5,900 acres in controversy, and therefore that the deed does not describe at all the land which is the subject of the controversy between the parties.

The Court of Chancery Appeals adjudged the controversy in favor of the complainants, and from this the defendants have appealed to this court and assigned errors.

The facts found by that court, so far as necessary to be stated, are as follows:

"As to the true location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry, the weight of the evidence shows that it was not at or near the beginning corner of the tract, as now claimed to be located by the complainant, and that a deed calling to commence at a point 47 poles north of the southeast corner of the correct location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown tract, and to run thence south 47 poles, and thence west with the south line of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry or tract, and on, as called for in the complainant's title papers, would not cover the land in litigation.

It is not absolutely certain, by any means, however, that the true location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry is as claimed by the defendants; in fact, two different maps, made according to surveys made by M. J. Walker and W. H. Havron, upon whose testimony as to location the defendants largely rely, do not correspond in every respect. One of the maps made by these parties showed what they called the correct location of the Staub 5,900 acres as touching and bounding the incorrect location upon the north, while another map, made by Mr. Havron, shows a space between these two locations of some considerable distance, and shows that they do not touch at all. It is also shown in the testimony of these two witnesses that they did not survey all the lines of these tracts, and especially the Castle (or Carrol) Brown tract, and there are some things in the testimony of these engineers which indicates that there may be some doubt as to the correct location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry, as made by them.

It further appears that a great many surveys have been made of these Barrell grants, lands, and other conflicting entries, and that there has been a conflict in the location of the several entries and grants, and particularly as to the correct location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry and grant. It is shown in an old map filed and referred to as an exhibit by Charles Seymour, which is proven to have been an old map that was made for the Barrell heirs and the Monroe heirs, that the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry is there located differently from what the defendants now contend to be the correct location.

It further appears that, some time after this land had been sold to Staub, the remaining Barrell lands were sold by the Monroes and others to Messrs. Brown and Spears, or a company represented by them, and that there was turned over to these parties an old map, purporting to be the final map which had been adopted as the result of many surveys, which shows the location of the Castle (or Carrol) Brown tract to be as now claimed by the complainant. A copy of that part of the map referring to these particular lands is made in Exhibit No. 1 to the deposition of Mr. A. R. McKenzie. * * * This map shows the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry to be located adjoining the tract claimed by Peter Staub, and according to this map, and if the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry be correctly located, as there shown and claimed, the Peter Staub tract of land, as conveyed by the deeds to Peter Staub, is correctly located as claimed by the complainant. But we think the weight of the evidence shows that the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry was not properly located on this map, and that the weight of the evidence shows, although the matter is not without considerable doubt, that the Castle (or Carrol) Brown entry was and is located, at least approximately, at the point claimed by the defendants. As to what was done at the time Peter Staub purchased these lands from the agents of the Monroe heirs, we find the facts to be as follows:

In about 1869 Staub, desiring to make an investment and having been interested in the Swiss colony near this place, visited these lands and finally negotiated with the agents of the Monroes a trade, and the precise land now claimed by the complainants was pointed out to Staub by the agents of the Monroes and examined by him. Afterwards the agents of the Monroes had the land surveyed out, and the tract actually sold was in fact surveyed on the ground, and the lines were designated and marked. At least it is reasonably certain that the north boundary and the west boundary and a greater part of the south boundary were actually run and marked and located as now claimed by the complainant. It appears that no marks have been found on the east boundary of the tract, and it may be that that line was not marked, but simply platted out; but the other lines the weight of the evidence shows, were, prior to the making of the deed, actually run and marked on the ground, and the beginning corner was located at the point where the complainant now claims it is located. After this was done, the deed was made by Massey Hill, attorney in fact for the Monroe heirs, and we believe and find that the parties--that is to say, Staub and the agents representing the Monroe heirs--all clearly understood what land was to be sold, and it was the purpose and intention of all that the land located as now claimed by the complainant was included in the sale. We think there was no misunderstanding between the parties as to the exact land sold, and it was the land claimed by the complainant, and located as now...