Taul v. Campbell
Tennessee Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the lessors of the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, to recover a moiety of lot No.-, in the town of Nashville.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the lessors of the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, to recover a moiety of lot No.-, in the town of Nashville. The parties agreed upon the following facts: “In this case, it is agreed by the parties that Caroline P. Anderson was seized and possessed of the lot in dispute:, as of her own.right, in fee, the same having been devised to her by her relation; that being so seized and possessed, she afterwards, to wit, on the 7th of March, 1827, intermarried with Thomas P. Taul, who entered into possession by virtue of the coverture. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Catron, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court is of opinion, that the statute of descents of 1784, does vest in the heir every estate in fee simple that passes from any person who dies seized, whether such estate be of inheritance or not at the common law, as was holden by Judge Catron, in Campbell vs. Taul, (3 Yer. 561.) This is admitted on the part of Taul’s devisees, but it is insisted, that an estate vested in husband and wife is a single, indivisible title; that the husband and wife are known in law as only one person, that they are a unit by the common law; and if an estate…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stevens v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Shaw v. HearseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Jackson v. Dillon's LesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by1 opinion
- Still v. Garretson (In Re Garretson)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1980