McDade v. Collins

447 S.W.2d 22, 60 Tenn. App. 335, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedApril 28, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 447 S.W.2d 22 (McDade v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McDade v. Collins, 447 S.W.2d 22, 60 Tenn. App. 335, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

On November 25, 1958, the Western Section of the Court of Appeals sitting' at Knoxville announced an opinion in the above styled cause which was published in 45 Tenn.App. 487, 325 S.W.2d 575. This opinion involved a very tedious and laborious study of a record of over 4,000 pages and involved the rights of Clint McDade, the father; Everest McDade and Neil McDade, sons; Grace Everest McDade, their mother and former wife of Clint McDade; Edith McDade, wife of Everest; Ruth McDade, wife of Neil; and Dorothy McDade Ferguson, a daughter of Clint McDade and Grace Everest McDade, in and to various corporations and partnerships owned in varying proportions by the several members of the family. The value of the several enterprises was considerably in excess of $500,000. Because of personality clashes it had become necessary that division be made, some of the family taking some of the businesses and others taking other businesses. In the course of the negotiations Everest McDade and wife, Edith, sold their interests to other members of the family.

These transfers involved some fifty or sixty separate documents. Disputes arose and litigation ensued as a result of which Everest McDade was declared by a jury to be mentally incompetent to execute the contracts which he signed disposing of his interests in the family busi[338]*338nesses. On the former appeal this court overruled the assignments of error made by Clint McDade and he is no longer involved in this litigation.

Some assignments of error by Neil McDade and wife, Ruth McDade, G-race Everest McDade and Dorothy Mc-Dade Ferguson were sustained. The primary contentions of Everest McDade on appeal by his then guardian ad litem, Hon. Robert C. McEwan of Chattanooga, were sustained and it was adjudged that his contracts were voidable. The cause was remanded for the lower court to redetermine the respective rights of the parties in all of the various family businesses after taking into consideration the profits made by the businesses and the services rendered by the several members of the family to the businesses.

Upon a remand another large record of over 1,200 pages was made. Mr. McEwan, guardian ad litem for Everest McDade, died and Hon. Eugene Collins of the Chattanooga Bar was appointed. He has rendered very valuable service as guardian ad litem for Everest Mc-Dade. The clash of personalities has persisted. Because of the protracted litigation all of the businesses have suffered. Some of them are on the verge of bankruptcy.

On April 12,1965, His Honor the Chancellor entered a final decree adjudicating the rights of' the parties. Everest McDade and his wife, Edith McDade, were the successful litigants upon the trial below. They have not appealed from the Chancellor’s decree. The opposing parties, Neil McDade, et al, have filed a broad appeal. This cause was assigned to the Western Section of the Court of Appeals for hearing in Knoxville on February 14, 1966.

[339]*339Solicitor for appellants upon argument of the cause impressed upon the court that after fifteen years litigation and because of the continuing clash of personalities between Everest McDade and wife, Edith McDade on the one hand and Neil McDade and wife, Ruth McDade, Dorothy McDade Ferguson, and Grace Everest McDade on the other, it is imperative that an end be made to the litigation very shortly, else all the parties will ultimately become bankrupt. It was the position of the solicitor for appellants that even though he felt that the decree of the Chancellor could be reversed in several respects, it would he to the advantage of all the parties for a decree in the nature of a settlement to be entered in this court modifying the decree of the court below in several respects and completely adjudicating all matters between the contending parties.

Accordingly, in lieu of the usual assignments of error, appellants Neil McDade et al filed a petition in this court setting out the salient provisions of the decree of the Chancellor below and outlining those provisions which the appellants thought should be modified as the most equitable adjustment of the many complex problems involved in this protracted litigation. The petition made no request for modification of the decree insofar as it affected the rights of Edith McDade, wife of Everest MoDade. The modifications sought affect only the interests of Everest McDade who has been declared mentally incompetent to contract with his brother, sister and mother.

Eugene N. Collins, guardian ad litem of Everest Mc-Dade, after conference with his client and ward, Everest MoDade, filed an answer or reply in which objection was made to certain portions of the proposed modification. [340]*340As to the other provisions of the proposed modification the guardian ad litem neither consented nor objected but submitted the interests of his ward to this court for entry of such decree as would be to the interest of said Everest McDade consistent with equity to the appellants.

Edith McDade represented herself in the court below. Since it is not sought on this appeal to change any part of the decree insofar as it affects her rights, it is not necessary that she be represented either by attorney or in person on this appeal.

On March 26,1966, this court entered an interlocutory order allowing the pledge of all of the stock of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Chattanooga to secure a loan of $50,000 for the company from the parent Pepsi Cola Company of California and discharged all injunctions and restrictions against the pledge of said stock entered by the court below. We felt that this order was necessary to prevent bankruptcy of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Chattanooga which was imminent.

We have reread our opinion in this case of date November 25, 1958, in 45 Tenn.App. 487, 325 S.W.2d 575. We have carefully considered the decree of the Chancellor entered of date April 12, 1965, the petition for modification and the answer of the guardian ad litem and the record of the trial below which has been filed in this court. It is the opinion of this court that it is manifestly to the best interests of all the parties to this litigation, including Everest and Edith McDade, and fair to all that the petition for modification should be sustained in a large measure but there are some provisions to which we think the objections of the guardian ad litem are well taken. We deem it of vital importance that the rights of [341]*341the parties in the several different businesses be determined in such a way as to cause a minimum of friction between Everest McDade and the appellants. We also deem it a matter of vital importance that this litigation be ended and that Neil McDade et al be permitted to rebuild the Pepsi Cola business and also the Clint Mo Dade and Sons, Inc. Orchid business; if not they won’t be able to pay the judgments which have been awarded to Everest and Edith McDade. Everest is now living in North Carolina where he is doing graduate study in Biology and of course, has no earning capacity of his own while so engaged.

Accordingly, we hold that the decree of the Chancellor below should be modified and/or affirmed as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southland News Co. v. McDade
447 S.W.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 S.W.2d 22, 60 Tenn. App. 335, 1966 Tenn. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdade-v-collins-tennctapp-1966.