case falls within rule in Tennessee

2015We have concluded, however, that this case falls within an exception to the general rule, the common fund doctrine, which “arises when the attorney ‘has succeeded in securing, augmenting, or preserving property or a fund of money in which other people are entitled to share in common.’” Id. (quoting Travelers Ins.

2005Jackson, 270 S.W.2d at 390 .

1983Cf. Branstetter v. Barnett, 521 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.App.1974), (where the court admitted parol evidence as to the exact location of “120 acres located in the 7th C.D. of Morgan County” on the theory that the tract was the only one owned by the defendant.) The evidence establishes defendants own a larger tract of land of which the disputed tract is a part; however, the agreement is enforceable because this case falls within the rule announced in Baliles v. Cities Service Co., 578 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn.1979).

1983Cf. Branstetter v. Barnett, 521 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.App.1974), (where the court admitted parol evidence as to the exact location of “120 acres located in the 7th C.D. of Morgan County” on the theory that the tract was the only one owned by the defendant.) The evidence establishes defendants own a larger tract of land of which the disputed tract is a part; however, the agreement is enforceable because this case falls within the rule announced in Baliles v. Cities Service Co., 578 S.W.2d 621 (Tenn.1979).

1957The foregoing Opinion was prepared for the Court by Judge Burnett of the Eastern Division, and in the Opinion he said [ 26 Tenn. App. 110 , 168 S. W. (2d) 190 ]: “The evidence in this case falls within the rule as announced by Judge McAmis in Mollie Coffelt v. Miller Bros.

1950Co. v. Trinkle, 185 Tenn. 434 , 206 S. W. (2d) 414 , that knowledge of the insurance agent is knowledge of the Company under Code, Section 6087, and that, therefore, knowledge of the agent is imputed to the Company, should be applied here, or whether the case falls within the exception applied in DeFord v. National Life & Accident Ins.

1950Co. v. Trinkle, 185 Tenn. 434 , 206 S. W. (2d) 414 , that knowledge of the insurance agent is knowledge of the Company under Code, Section 6087, and that, therefore, knowledge of the agent is imputed to the Company, should be applied here, or whether the case falls within the exception applied in DeFord v. National Life & Accident Ins.

1950Co., 182 Tenn. 255 , 185 S. W. (2d) 617 , that where it is “plainly indicated” that there is fraud and conspiracy between the insured and the Company *229 agent, and that the agent will not reveal the true facts to his principal, no recovery on the policy will be permitted. , „ | In the present case, one Sonnenfield was the agent of the Company, and he had known the Plaintiff and her husband for two or three years prior to the issuance of the policy.

1950Co., 182 Tenn. 255 , 185 S. W. (2d) 617 , that where it is “plainly indicated” that there is fraud and conspiracy between the insured and the Company *229 agent, and that the agent will not reveal the true facts to his principal, no recovery on the policy will be permitted. , „ | In the present case, one Sonnenfield was the agent of the Company, and he had known the Plaintiff and her husband for two or three years prior to the issuance of the policy.

1937We think the case falls within the rule announced in Vance v. Shelby County, 152 Tenn., 141 , 273 S. W., 557, 559 .

1937We think the case falls within the rule announced in Vance v. Shelby County, 152 Tenn., 141 , 273 S. W., 557, 559 .

1926Co., 109 S. E., 632 , 18 A. L.

1923We think the case falls within the rule approved by this court in State v. Covington, 142 Tenn., 659 , 222 S. W., 1 .

1919It is insisted by the complainant that this case falls within the rule announced in Ogvilvie v. Wright, 140 Tenn., 114 , 203 S. W., 753 , and kindred cases.

1906The case falls within the principle of Railroad v. Johnson, 114 Tenn., 632, 637-640 , 88 S. W., 169 .