5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gibbs v. Pattengreen1 sentence2022Hoyal v. Bryson, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 139 , 142-43 (Tenn. 1871) (“[W]e hold it is not imperative on the court to bar the equity of redemption, but a matter of sound legal discretion, to be exercised in view of the fact[s] of the case.”); see also Smith, 79 Tenn. at 744 ; Gibbs. v. Patten, 70 Tenn. 180, 185 (Tenn. 1879) (holding that generally, where the complainant asks in his bill for a sale in bar of the right of redemption, he is “clearly entitled” to such a decree unless it is a “very exceptional” case). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2022Hoyal v. Bryson, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 139 , 142-43 (Tenn. 1871) (“[W]e hold it is not imperative on the court to bar the equity of redemption, but a matter of sound legal discretion, to be exercised in view of the fact[s] of the case.”); see also Smith, 79 Tenn. at 744 ; Gibbs. v. Patten, 70 Tenn. 180, 185 (Tenn. 1879) (holding that generally, where the complainant asks in his bill for a sale in bar of the right of redemption, he is “clearly entitled” to such a decree unless it is a “very exceptional” case). | 1 | 1 |
Hoyal v. Brysongreen1 sentence2022Hoyal v. Bryson, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 139 , 142-43 (Tenn. 1871) (“[W]e hold it is not imperative on the court to bar the equity of redemption, but a matter of sound legal discretion, to be exercised in view of the fact[s] of the case.”); see also Smith, 79 Tenn. at 744 ; Gibbs. v. Patten, 70 Tenn. 180, 185 (Tenn. 1879) (holding that generally, where the complainant asks in his bill for a sale in bar of the right of redemption, he is “clearly entitled” to such a decree unless it is a “very exceptional” case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Young
green
2 sentences1913This was held in Adams v. Young, 200 Mass., 588 , 86 N. E., 942 , a case involving a sale in violation of the Massachu setts Bulk Sale Act. 1913This was held in Adams v. Young, 200 Mass., 588 , 86 N. E., 942 , a case involving a sale in violation of the Massachu setts Bulk Sale Act. | 2 | 1913–1915 |
Loos v. . Wilkinson
green
2 sentences1915Those whose purchase of property has been under such a statute denounced as constructively fraudulent, and avoided by creditors of the seller, may stand in the place of other creditors whose demands have been thus paid.” For this the court cited Adams v. Young, 200 Mass., 588 , 86 N. E., 942 , Loos v. Wilkinson, 113 N. Y., 485 , 21 N. E., 392 , 4 L. 1915Those whose purchase of property has been under such a statute denounced as constructively fraudulent, and avoided by creditors of the seller, may stand in the place of other creditors whose demands have been thus paid.” For this the court cited Adams v. Young, 200 Mass., 588 , 86 N. E., 942 , Loos v. Wilkinson, 113 N. Y., 485 , 21 N. E., 392 , 4 L. | 2 | 1913–1915 |
Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co.
green
2 sentences1932In the case of Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co., 89 Tenn., 443 , 14 S. W., 930 , the court held that “Decree for sale of debtor’s land barring his right of redemption is erroneous unless there is in the bill a prayer for sale in bar of that right. ’ ’ See, also, Smith v. Taylor, 11 Lea (79 Tenn.), 738. 1932In the case of Turner Bros. v. Argo & Co., 89 Tenn., 443 , 14 S. W., 930 , the court held that “Decree for sale of debtor’s land barring his right of redemption is erroneous unless there is in the bill a prayer for sale in bar of that right. ’ ’ See, also, Smith v. Taylor, 11 Lea (79 Tenn.), 738. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Perkins v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1932In Perkins v. Williams, 45 Tenn., 512 (5 Cold.), it was held that breach of the covenant of seizin did not entitle the covenantee to come into equity, rescind the sale and bar collection of the purchase money. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.