Tuck v. Chaffin

• Decision Date: 24 January 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 97
• Parties: TUCK v. CHAFFIN.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

15 S.W. 97

TUCK v. CHAFFIN.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 24, 1891.

Appeal from chancery court, Macon county; C. MARCHBANKS, Special Chancellor.

J. L. Roark and Head & Wooten, for appellant. John S. McMurray and M. N. Alexander, for appellee.

CALDWELL, J.

This is an ejectment bill. In 1876 complainant sold and conveyed to defendant 900 acres of land for $1,000, and took his five promissory notes, for $200 each, for the purchase money. These notes matured, respectively, on the first day of May, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881. None of them were paid. On the 15th of June, 1881, Tuck recovered judgment against Chaffin, before a justice of the peace, in one suit, on three of these notes, for the aggregate sum of $640.50; and in another suit, on the other two notes, for the aggregate sum of $424.19. Two months later, on the 15th of August, 1881, executions were issued on each of these judgments, and placed in the hands of the sheriff, who on the same day levied them on the said 900 acres of land. Thereafter the justice of the peace transmitted the papers in both cases at the same time to the circuit court, when the land was condemned for sale, in one order, to satisfy the two judgments. In due season, one venditioni exponas was issued to the sheriff, commanding him to expose the land to sale for the satisfaction of both judgments. The sale was regularly made. Tuck became the purchaser for the full amount of his two judgments, and received a deed, with proper recitals, from the sheriff. In January, 1883, Tuck brought this bill against Chaffin to recover the posssesion of the land. Several matters of defense were interposed by the defendant; but the chancellor, who heard the cause on pleadings and proof, was of opinion that complainant was entitled to the relief sought and pronounced a decree accordingly. The defendant has appealed, and assigned errors.

The principal defense set up in the answer below, and urged in the assignment of errors here, is based upon the conceded facts that the circuit court pronounced but one judgment of condemnation, and awarded but one venditioni exponas for the satisfaction of the two judgments, which aggregated $1,064.69. The proposition is that the action of the circuit court was null and void for want of jurisdiction of the amount ($1,064.69) covered by the judgment of condemnation; that, because the maximum jurisdiction of a justice of the peace in an action on notes of hand is $1,000, the circuit court, in...