Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co.

14 S.W. 930, 89 Tenn. 443
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 16, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 14 S.W. 930 (Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co.) 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
Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co., 14 S.W. 930, 89 Tenn. 443 (Tenn. 1890).

Opinion

Lea, J.

Turner Bros, filed a bill against L. E. Argo and his wife, Rebecca H. Argo, partners, ¡under the firm name of L. E. Argo & Co., to [444]*444collect an account for goods sold, and to set aside a fraudulent sale of the goods to one 'Whitmore.

Afterward an amended bill was filed, attaching three lots in the city of Nashville, belonging to Mrs. Argo.

The bill and amended bill were answered. The correctness of the account was admitted, but it was insisted in both answers that, while the name of the husband was used in the firm name, the wife alone owned the stock of goods, and the husband had no interest therein; and Mrs. Argo in her answer claimed that she was entitled to homestead in the three lots attached, if a sale thereof was' ordered.

The Chancellor gave a decree in favor of complainants for the amount of their debt, and ordered a sale of the land upon a credit, barring the equity of redemption.

The case is here by writ of error.

The defendants have assigned two errors: First, because the Court ordered the sale barring the equity of redemption; and, secondly, because of the refusal to grant homestead.

The first assignment is well taken. There was no application in the amended bill, under which the land was sold, to bar the equity of redemption.

The second assignment is not well taken. The lands belonged to Mrs. Argo. The law provides for the exemption of a homestead to each head of a family. In law, though it may be otherwise [445]*445in fact, the husband is the head of the family. She is not therefore entitled to homestead out of her own lands; nor, as contended in argument, is the husband entitled to homestead in lands belonging to the wife.

The decree of the Chancellor will be . affirmed, with the modification above indicated. The land will he sold for cash, subject to equity of- redemption. The cost will be' páid by defendants.

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

Related

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc.
301 S.W.3d 237 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2010)
Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc. - Dissenting
Tennessee Supreme Court, 2010
In re the Adoption of Infant Sherman
48 V.I. 221 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2007)
Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co. v. Floyd
44 F. App'x 663 (Sixth Circuit, 2002)
In Re Estate of Dobbins
987 S.W.2d 30 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1998)
In re the Estate of Hodge
24 V.I. 210 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1989)
Banovic v. Davis
642 S.W.2d 153 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1982)
Allen v. Clinchfield Railroad
325 F. Supp. 1305 (E.D. Tennessee, 1971)
Whitley v. Georgia Western & Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.
299 F. Supp. 1238 (E.D. Tennessee, 1969)
Black v. Washam
421 S.W.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1967)
Sneed v. Henderson Ex Rel. Henderson
366 S.W.2d 758 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1963)
Prichard v. Carter
348 S.W.2d 306 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1961)
Delamotte v. Stout
340 S.W.2d 894 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1960)
Fey v. Cato
276 S.W.2d 734 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1955)
Reeves v. Lowe
56 So. 2d 475 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1952)
Estate of Roberts
194 P.2d 28 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Frank v. Frank
172 S.W.2d 804 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1943)
Rogers v. Green
137 P.2d 408 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 S.W. 930, 89 Tenn. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-bros-v-argo-co-tenn-1890.