State v. Taylor

64 S.W. 766, 107 Tenn. 455
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedJune 24, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 64 S.W. 766 (State v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Taylor, 64 S.W. 766, 107 Tenn. 455 (Tenn. 1901).

Opinion

Caldwell, J.

This is a bill by the State of Tennessee, on relation of D. W. Beckham, to enjoin G. T. Taylor from erecting a business house on ground alleged to be a part of a public street. The Chancellor granted the relief sought, and the defendant appealed.

In the year 1855, Gen. G. W. Gibbs, owner of the land, laid off and platted a town which he-[457]*457called Union City. He sold lots according to his plan on both sides of the numerous streets, including Washington avenue, and in 1867 the town so established, with certain additions, was incorporated by that name. Washington avenue was the broadest of all the streets, being 100 feet wide at every point from one end to the other. It runs east and west, and is intersected by several north and south streets, the eastermost of which is Depot street, and the next, to the westward 120 feet, is First street. Beck & Bransford owned a large part of the block of ground bounded by those two streets, Washington avenue and its first parallel street on the south, some 500 feet distant. They abutted on the south side of Washington avenue 120 feet, the full width of the block, and had other lots southward. From the east and opposite that block, near the middle, Harrison street entered Depot street, and there terminated. Such was the situation for years. In 1884 Harrison street was extended through that block directly west to First street, and the width of Washington avenue, for the distance between Depot street and First street, was diminished in the manner, for the purposes, and upon the considerations disclosed in the following deed, namely:

“Know All Men by These Presents: That by virtue of the following ordinance of the Mayor and Aldermen of the corporation of Union City, Tenn., passed December 2, 1884, and the consideration therein expressed, the said Beck & Bransford having [458]*458of this date conveyed to the Mayor and Aldermen of Union City, by their deed, the said right of way for Harrison street to First street, as therein set forth. Said ordinance is as follows:
“Council RooM, December 2, 1884.
“Board met in regular session. Present: Mayor Moore, Aldermen Bransford, Deitzel, Ownby, and Shoifner. Minutes read and adopted, etc. On motion and second, the following ordinance was passed and ordered spread on the minutes, viz.:
‘‘Be it ordained by the Board of Mayor cmd Aldermen of the Corporation of Union City: That it is the manifest interest of the corporation that Harrison street be extended west to First street, and Beck & Bransford are the owners of the property through which said street would run, if so extended; and, whereas, that portion of Washington, avenue between First street and Depot street is wider than necessary, and Beck & Bransford, are willing to exchange with the said corporation the right of way through their said property for a portion of the said Washington avenue. It is, therefore, ordered by the board that the following described portion of Washington avenue is hereby condemned, set aside, and conveyed to the said Beck & Bransford, to wit: Beginning in the south line of Washington avenue at the intersection of the east line of First street, this point being the northwest corner of Beck & Bransford’s furniture factory lot, runs thence north with the east line of First street [459]*45941 feet to a stake; thence east 120 feet to the west line of Depot street; thence south 41 feet to the south line of Washington avenue; thence west 120 feet to the beginning. In consideration of the transfer of the above property to Beck & Brans-ford, they have agreed and bound themselves to convey to the corporation of Union City, through its Mayor and Aldermen, the above-mentioned right of way for the extension of Harrison street through to , First street by the following bounds, to wit: Beginning at the northwest corner of Frank Maney’s residence lot; thence north 41 feet; thence east 120 feet to Depot street; thence south with Depot street 41 feet to Maney’s northeast corner; thence west 120 feet to the beginning. And it is further ordered by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen that when the said Beck & Bransford shall have executed their deed to the said right of way to the said corporation, that the Mayor and Recorder of this corporation are hereby authorized, empowered, and instructed to make and execute to the said Beck & Bransford a deed in fee to that portion of Washington avenue being set forth and described above, such deed to contain the general covenants and warranty, the right to hold and forever use and dispose of and warrant title, etc.
“Be it further ordained: That this Act take effect from and after its passage of this day and date.
“John Barry, Recorder.
£<J. M. Moore, Mayor.
[460]*460“Therefore, in compliance with, and in furtherance of, said ordinance, that portion of Washington avenue as set forth and described in said ordinance is hereby conveyed to the said Beck & Bransford, in fee, to. them and their heirs and assigns, with covenant of general warranty, that the same is unin-cumbered, that the right herein exists to so convey, that the quiet and peaceful possession is guaranteed, and that the title to the same be warranted to the said Beck & Bransford, and their heirs and assigns, by the said Mayor and Aldermen of Union City, and their successors in office, against the lawful claims of all persons whatsoever, and we further certify that the foregoing ordinance, as herein set forth, is a true and perfect copy of the original, as shown by the minute book of the said Board of Mayor aud Aldermen of Union City, Tenn.
“Witness our signatures, this December 4, 1884.
“ J. M. MooRE, Mayor.
“John Bakey, Recorder.]'1

The streets as originally laid out, and the changes first referred to, are well illustrated by the appended diagram, in which the extent of the diminution of Washington avenue is represented by the parallelogram inclosing the letter “A,” and the territory taken in exchange for extension of Harrison street is represented by the lines surrounding the letter “B.”

[461]

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

Related

Steppach v. Thomas
346 S.W.3d 488 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2011)
State ex rel. Kessel v. Ashe
888 S.W.2d 430 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1994)
Jacoway v. Palmer
753 S.W.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1987)
Adams v. Underwood
470 S.W.2d 180 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1971)
City of Memphis v. Overton
392 S.W.2d 98 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1965)
City of Memphis v. Overton
392 S.W.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1964)
Sweetwater Valley Memorial Park, Inc. v. City of Sweetwater
372 S.W.2d 168 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1963)
Paschall v. Valentine
321 S.W.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1958)
Clouse v. Garfinkle
231 S.W.2d 345 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1950)
Current v. Stevenson
116 S.W.2d 1026 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1938)
Harbin v. Smith
76 S.W.2d 107 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1934)
Jackson v. Hutton
15 Tenn. App. 281 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1932)
Beadle v. the Town of Crossville
7 S.W.2d 992 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1928)
State of Georgia v. City of Chattanooga
4 Tenn. App. 674 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Knoxville Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. City of Knoxville
284 S.W. 866 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1925)
Illinois Cent. R. v. Moriarity
135 Tenn. 446 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1916)
Coyne v. City of Memphis
118 Tenn. 651 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1907)
Pope v. Dykes
116 Tenn. 230 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
Wilkins v. Chicago. St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad
110 Tenn. 422 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 S.W. 766, 107 Tenn. 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-tenn-1901.