NEWNAN v. MACLIN, 6 Tenn. 241 (1813)

NEWNAN v. MACLIN.

Court of Errors and Appeals, Nashville.
August Term, 1813.

If the vendor of lands can not make a title, clearly good, as to part thereof, the vendee may claim a return of such part of the purchase-money as he has paid, and a rescission of the contract. (Ace. Wood v. Mason, 2 Cold., 252, citing this and other cases.)

And the title is doubtful as to land held under execution against heirs, upon a judgment founded on a scire facias in which the heirs were not specially named; the point never having been authoritatively determined, and ought not to be in this collateral way. (See Williams v. Seawell, 1 Y., 83, and Roberts v. Busby, 3 Hay., 195, where the point is resolved against such title.)

In case of rescission by decree, it will be ordered that the moneys paid by the vendee shall be a lien on the land. (Acc. Perkins v. Hadley, 4 Hay., 148; Pilcher v. Smith, 2 Head, 208; Hilton v. Duncan, 1 Cold., 320.)

After full argument and time taken to consider, the Court, composed of Overton and White, JJ., decided, —

First. That if the vendor of lands as to part can not make a title clearly good, the vendee may claim a return of such part of the purchase-money as he has paid, and a rescission of the contract.

Secondly. In this instance the tide to part of the lands sold is doubtful; for it is held under an execution against heirs, founded upon a judgment, which again was founded on a sci. fa. in which the heirs were not specially named; but were only described as the heirs of Elijah Robertson. And whether that be a good sci. fa.
is not yet settled in this State by any judicial determination of the Supreme Court. It ought not to be settled when coming before the Court in a

Page 242

collateral way. It is enough at present to perceive that it is a disputable and an unsettled question.

Thirdly. In case of rescinding the bargain by a decree of the Court, it will be ordered that the moneys paid to the vendor shall be a lien on the estate sold.

A decree was made in conformity with the above principles.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 6 Tenn. 241

Recent Posts

STATE v. WHITE, 362 S.W.3d 559 (2012)

362 S.W.3d 559 (2012) STATE of Tennessee v. Jason Lee WHITE. No. M2009-00941-SC-R11-CD.Supreme Court of…

2 weeks ago

ALLEN v. ALLEN, M2007-00356-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App. 1-4-2008)

HIRAM LEON ALLEN v. MARGARET ANN ALLEN. No. M2007-00356-COA-R3-CV.Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.October…

9 years ago

STATE v. SCOTT, M2001-02911-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 10-28-2003)

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDALL SCOTT. No. M2001-02911-CCA-R3-CD.Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. at Nashville.Assigned…

9 years ago

STATE v. SINGLETON, E2003-01747-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 4-13-2004)

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY LAMONT SINGLETON. No. E2003-01747-CCA-R3-CD.Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. at…

9 years ago

LITZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., 58 Tenn. App. 585 (1968)

435 S.W.2d 124 CLARENCE LITZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Northwestern Security Ins.…

9 years ago

STATE v. CANDLER, 728 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1986)

STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. John H. CANDLER, Appellant.Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. at…

9 years ago