Partee v. Thomas
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
In Equity. On demurrer. The bill alleges that Daniel Cherry, by his will of May 9, 1843, made provisions for his daughters, of Whom the plaintiff Mosella D. Cherry, afterwards married to Hiram'A. Partee,'who died in 1877, was one. It is under the ninth and eighteenth items of the will that the plaintiff claims title to the lands described in the bill.
Read the full summary
In Equity. On demurrer. The bill alleges that Daniel Cherry, by his will of May 9, 1843, made provisions for his daughters, of Whom the plaintiff Mosella D. Cherry, afterwards married to Hiram'A. Partee,'who died in 1877, was one. It is under the ninth and eighteenth items of the will that the plaintiff claims title to the lands described in the bill. They read as follows: “Item 9. I give unto Norman T. Cherry and Calvin W. Cherry, as trustees for my daughter, Mósella Bearbra Cherry, and for her benefit and for her use, the following property named hereafter, viz.: I give to said trustees,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hammond, D. J.
There has grown up in Tennessee, without any statute such as exists in many of the states, a rule that a party out of possession may file a bill in equity to remove, as clouds upon his title, the deeds of an adversary claimant in possession, and thereby recover the land, or rents or profits, the rule being entirely the product of judicial decision. Almony v. Hicks 3 Head, 39, and numerous cases cited; 1 Meigs, Dig. (2d Ed.) p. 479, § 474. If this case were technically a bill to remove clouds from the plaintiff’s title, the question whether a federal court of equity could…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Smith T. v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Cook v. TullisSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Doe v. ConsidineSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.