Williams v. Seawell & Jones' Lessee
| Decision Date | 31 January 1825 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. SEAWELL & JONES' LESSEE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
One question (amongst others) presented in this cause is, whether a purchaser at execution sale, issued upon a judgment against heirs, pursuant to the act of 1784, ch. 11, acquires any title to the lands sold as their property, where the scire facias predicated upon the judgment against the administrator, does not name the heirs, and where the judgment is taken without personal notice, upon two nihils returned by the sheriff.
This cause was before the supreme court of this state in 1814, when it was decided that the scire facias, and the return thereof, was sufficient to authorize judgment and execution, and to vest the title in the purchaser. 2 Tenn. Rep. 273; 5 Hay. Rep. 280.
In 1817, the question again came before the supreme court, in the case of Roberts v. Busby and wife, 3 Hay. Rep. 299, when it was adjudged, that the statute required notice to the heir; and that if no notice was given, the judgment was void, and a sale of the heir's land, by virtue thereof, would vest no title in the purchaser.
This latter adjudication has been followed ever since, and is now too well settled to be ever questioned. I therefore think the defendants in error took no estate by their purchase under the execution sale against Andrew Armstrong's heirs.
Williams, the defendant in the ejectment, claims by virtue of a younger grant and distinct title from the heirs of Armstrong; and being a stranger to their title, it is contended that by the rules of law, he has no right to set up the outstanding title in third persons to defeat the lessors of the plaintiff. It is a standing rule in the action of ejectment, that the lessor of the plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title, without reference to that of his adversary whose possession is deemed rightful against all but the true owner. Apply this rule to Seawell and Jones, and the consequence is inevitable--they have no title, and their action of necessity cannot be sustained.
But it is the settled law of this state that the party in possession of land is presumed to have a possessory title thereto, and has a right to give in evidence an outstanding title in a third person to protect himself, when sued in ejectment. Garner's Lessee v. Johnston, Peck's Rep. 24, which overrules the cases of M'Allister's Lessee v. Williams, and Perryman's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clement v. Nichols
... ... action. Williams v. Seawell & Jones' Lessee, 9 ... Tenn. 83, and many [186 Tenn. 240] ... ...
-
Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Blackwell
...that the writ must bear the name of the party against whom recovery is sought. Roberts v. Busby, 4 Tenn. 299 (1817); Williams v. Seawell and Jones' Lessee, 9 Tenn. 83 (1825). Finally, although no case specifically so holds, the law allows reissuance of a defective scire facias. See State v.......
-
Clement v. Nichols
...property in such third Page 25 person shown by the defendant would be a good defense to the action. Williams v. Seawell & Jones' Lessee, 9 Tenn. 83, and many subsequent cases cited in Evans v. Belmont Land Co., 92 Tenn. 348, 21 S.W. Here, the complainants show no more than an equitable titl......
-
Bertha v. Smith
... ... title in a third person. Williams v. Seawell, 9 ... Tenn. 83, 1 Yerg. 83 ... In ... ...