Williams v. Gideon

• Decision Date: 28 February 1872
• Parties: ALVIS WILLIAMS, Trustee, v. JAMES M. GIDEON et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

54 Tenn. 617

ALVIS WILLIAMS, Trustee,

v.JAMES M. GIDEON et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Feb. 28, 1872.

FROM MAURY.

From the Chancery Court, September Term, 1868. HILARY WARD, Ch.

Anonymous brief for complainant.

THOMAS & BARNETT for defendants.

FREEMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

James Pulliam made a deed of trust in August, 1865, conveying the land in controversy in this case to James M. Gideon, the defendant, as trustee for the benefit of his creditors, among whom was the said Gideon, whose debt amounted to about $600.

Gideon accepted the trust, gave bond, and qualified according to law, and continued to act till July, 1866, when he claims to have resigned his trust,-- as he alleges in his answer, because he found that the deed of trust was fraudulent, and intended to hinder and delay the creditors of Pulliam. In December, 1867, the complainant Williams was appointed trustee under the deed of trust, by the County Court of Maury county, and at the October Term, 1868, he filed this bill.

It seems that a small judgment had been rendered against Pulliam by a Justice of the Peace in favor of one Mackey, and execution been thereon issued, and levied on this land, before the making of the deed of trust. The land was condemned and ordered to be sold by the Circuit Court under this levy, and was sold by the Sheriff to one Wortham for about $13. Mrs. Lawrence, the one of the beneficiaries under the deed having the largest debt secured by it, having died, Granberry, one of the defendants to this bill, was appointed her administrator, and then redeemed the land as such administrator, bidding or advancing the debt of his intestate on the same. After this, defendant Gideon claims to have redeemed from Granberry, administrator, and to have advanced the amount of his debt on the same. In the meantime, as it is charged in the bill, Williams, after his appointment as trustee, had tendered the redemption money to Wortham, the first purchaser, offering to redeem, but this had been refused.

This bill is filed by Williams to enforce the trust, sell the land, and appropriate the proceeds according to the terms of the deed of assignment made by Pulliam to Gideon. It goes on the ground that Gideon being a beneficiary under said deed, as well as Mrs. Lawrence, the intestate of Granberry, could not by redeeming the land from Wortham, or from Granberry, who had done so, hold the land denuded of the trust, or thus acquire an interest adverse to the trust and maintain it.

We think that, in view of the facts of the case, this is true. It is clear from the proof that Mrs. Lawrence had unequivocally accepted the benefits of the deed of trust. It is equally clear that Gideon had done so likewise, as he accepted the position of trustee, and gave bond for the due execution and performance of the trust; and so with the other beneficiaries mentioned in the deed.

Under this state of facts, we think that the beneficiaries, having become parties to the trust by assent to its terms, could not fairly be permitted to redeem...