Wilson v. Schaefer

• Decision Date: 15 June 1901
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. SCHAEFER et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

64 S.W. 208

107 Tenn. 300

WILSON et al. v. SCHAEFER et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 15, 1901

Appeal from chancery court, Shelby county; H. F. Heiskell Chancellor.

Bill by Catherine B. Wilson and others against H. Schaefer and others. From an order sustaining demurrers to parts of the bill, complainants bring error, and, from an order overruling demurrers as to other parts, defendants appeal. Reversed.

P. W McBeth and Gillham & Gillham, for complainants. McFarland & Neblett, Thos. M. Scruggs, and Metcalf & Metcalf, for defendants.

McALISTER J.

This bill was filed on the 28th of June, 1900, as a bill of review to set aside a decree pronounced by the chancery court of Shelby county on the 11th of March, 1874, for error apparent on the face of the decree, and for newly-discovered evidence. It is also filed as a bill in the nature of a bill of review and as an original bill seeking to impeach said decree for fraud. The bill was filed by remainder-men under the will of W. C. Bradford, deceased, who claim that the life estate in certain valuable realty in the city of Memphis terminated in 1891, when they became entitled to possession, but they are wrongfully kept out of possession by the defendant, who claims title by virtue of a compromise decree rendered in 1874. It is charged that complainants were under disability when their rights accrued, and that this disability still exists. It is alleged that said compromise decree is void for the reasons that the court had no jurisdiction of the parties; that said decree was not warranted by the pleadings that the court had no jurisdiction to exchange real estate of minors situated in Tennessee for real estate located in Illinois; and, finally, it is charged that said decree was fraudulently obtained. Demurrers were interposed to this bill by the several defendants. The chancellor, while adjudging several of the demurrers good, sustained the bill on the ground that the compromise decree of 1874 was not within the scope of the pleadings, coram non judice, and void. The chancellor, in the exercise of the discretion given him by the statute, permitted each party to appeal. Defendants perfected their appeals, and complainants have brought the case to this court by writ of error.

It is necessary, in order to present the issues in controversy that a more specific statement of the case as made in the bill and exhibits be outlined. The several pieces of property in controversy are now owned by the Livermore Foundry Company, Mary E. Coover, Lawrence B. Coover, and B. G. Henning, who are the real defendants to the bill. It is charged in the bill that one Wat. C. Bradford, a citizen of Memphis, Tenn., died in Tennessee in 1864, owning the real estate involved in this litigation, situated in Memphis, Tenn. He left a will, which was probated in Shelby county, Tenn., in 1864, by which he devised all his property to his widow, Catherine A. Bradford, "in trust that she may enjoy and hold the same, with its emoluments and profits, for and during the term of her natural life, for the support and maintenance of herself and family, and the remainder and reversion thereof to my daughter, Mary Knapp, wife of -- Knapp, and her children then living or thereafter to be born, free from the debts, contracts, or engagements of her present or any future husband. My wife, if she desires, may at any time set apart and deliver to my said daughter, Mary Knapp, any portion of said property, real or personal, to be held by her," etc. The will also directs the executors to pay debts "out of any moneys now on hand, or to be realized hereafter from collections or from the sale of real or personal property, which they are hereby authorized to make for that purpose." William Chase and J. M. Provine were named as executors of the will. Provine declined to qualify, and Chase, with the widow, Catherine A., qualified as executors, and acted as such until March, 1867, at which time Chase settled his accounts in the probate court, and resigned. The widow had married Dr. H. Schaefer shortly before Chase's resignation, and thereafter continued as administratrix with the will annexed. It is alleged that on August 10, 1867, Catherine A. Schaefer, administratrix of the estate of Wat. C. Bradford, and H. Schaefer and Mary C. Knapp, executed to Reuben Jones, of Baltimore, Md., a deed for the recited consideration of $5.000, purporting to convey to Jones a certain lot in the city of Memphis, fronting on the east side of Town Reserve street, or Brinkley avenue, 230 feet, and running back between parallel lines 218 feet and 9 inches, it being the homestead lot on which Bradford lived at the time of his death, and now owned by the defendant Henning. It is further alleged that on August 15, 1867, the same parties conveyed to the said Reuben Jones, for the expressed consideration of $25,000, another lot in the city of Memphis situated on Adams and Washington streets. The part of said lot fronting on Washington street is claimed by the Coover estate, while that part fronting on Adams street is now owned by the Livermore Foundry. It should be remarked in this connection that in the settlement filed by the executor Catherine A. Schaefer she accounted for the sum of $30,000 purchase money for the lots aforesaid as having been collected by them on August 15, 1867, from one Jones. It is charged in the bill that these conveyances were fraudulent, and were made to Reuben Jones, who was a brother to Mrs. Schaefer, without his knowledge or consent; that he never heard of the conveyances until a year or two after their execution; that he never saw the property, and paid no part of the purported consideration. It is then charged that said conveyances were the result of a fraudulent scheme on the part of Dr. Schaefer to defeat the remainder estate of the children of Mrs. Knapp in said property, and to realize for himself the proceeds of the sales. It is conceded in the bill that both Mrs. Schaefer and her daughter were innocent in the matter, and were induced to join in the conveyances through the fraud, misrepresentations, and undue influence of Dr. Schaefer. It is further alleged that the property in question remained in this state of title until the year 1870, when Dr. Schaefer negotiated an exchange of it with Adam Smith, of the state of Illinois, for property situated in that state, and thereupon Shaefer and wife applied to Jones to convey the Memphis property to Smith. It is claimed that this is the first knowledge Jones received that the Memphis property had been conveyed to him. Jones objected to the transaction, and refused, upon the advice of his counsel, to execute a warranty deed. Afterwards he reluctantly executed quitclaim deeds to the property to Smith on the 26th of October, 1871. It was further shown that shortly after the execution of the deeds from Schaefer and wife and Mrs. Knapp to Reuben Jones, Schaefer moved the family, including Mrs. Knapp and children, from Memphis to Illinois, where they have since resided. Mrs. Knapp, about April, 1871, intermarried with David Burnham. Mrs. Knapp had four children by her first husband, three of whom are now living, and are parties to the present suit, namely, Catherine B. Wilson, Elizabeth G. Dunham, and Mamie F. Hungerford. Wat. C. Knapp, son of Mary Knapp, died intestate, and his son and sole heir Dillis C. Knapp, a minor, is also complainant. Mrs. Burnham (Mary C. Knapp) has one child, John D. Burnham, by her second marriage. It is further alleged that on September 11, 1871, a bill was filed in the chancery court of Shelby county, styled "Reuben Jones vs. H. Schaefer, Catherine A. Schaefer, Mary C. Burnham, David Burnham, her husband, Mary Knapp, Kate Knapp, Lizzie Knapp, and Will C. Knapp," alleging the execution of the deeds from Schaefer to Jones; that said deeds were intended as an execution of the power of sale given by the will of Wat. C. Bradford, deceased, to pay debts of the estate, but that they failed to make proper recital in the first deeds; that they subsequently executed another deed to him, reciting the facts above stated, and quoting from the will the powers given to such executor, which they sought to have approved and confirmed by the court as a valid execution of the power. It is stated that this deed was filed with the bill, but never recorded. It appears that publication was made for all the defendants to this bill, including the minors, and on November 1, 1871, T. B. Turley was appointed by the court guardian ad litem for the minor defendants May, Kate, Lizzie, and Wat. C. Knapp. On May 4, 1872, these minors, by their said guardian ad litem, filed an answer to this bill. On April 15, 1873, David Burnham and wife, Mary C. Burnham, filed an answer for themselves, and a cross bill for themselves and as next friend of Mary, Kate, Lizzie, and Wet. C. Knapp, against Reuben Jones, H. and Catherine Schaefer, and Adam Smith. They set up in this cross bill that Mary C. Knapp, now Burnham, was persuaded to join in the deeds executed to Jones, and previously set out herein, by the fraudulent representations of Jones and H. Schaefer, and that Jones had conveyed to Adam Smith by the false representations to Jones, and asked in the cross bill that the court construe the will of Wat. C. Bradford, and set aside all the deeds made to Jones and by Jones to Smith, and for the recovery of the real estate so conveyed. Afterwards, on May 21, 1873, David Burnham and his wife, Mary, in their own behalf and as next friend to Mary, Kate, Lizzie, and Wat. C. Knapp, the minor children of Mary C., filed their original bill against Adam Smith, attacking the conveyances made to him as the product of fraud and collusion between him and Schaefer, and seeking to have them all set aside and...