noxscoma v. nonsr. 1`5' ·
*' The following cases are citedlfor the convenience of the court and counsel,
as bearing upon the construction of the will in question here: Moyston v. , r
Bacon, 7 Lea, 236; Ragsdale v. Mabry, 8 Bax. 300; Wyync v. Wyyne, 9 Hcisk.
308; Almzander v. Miller, 7 Heisk. 81; Owen v. Hancock, 1 Head,,·§63;Q Srnith
v. Metcalji Id. 64; Woodrum v. Kirkpatrick, 2 Swan. 224; Petty'v.'1MooreQ
5 Sneed, 127; and Hamilton v. Bishop, 8 Yerg. 41. I have not consulted
authorities outside the decisions of our own state supreme court, as the Ten- ·
nessee adjudications, it seems to me, must control the question made here. ·
“As a result of the foregoing cases, and my investigation, I reportlthat
Mrs. Amelia E. Rogers did not take a fee-simple title under the will of her
mother; that she could not, therefore, and did not, convey such atitle to Mrs.
Margaret Holst by the deed of September 23, 1868, and that, consequently,
at the marshal’s sale the purchaser, Mr. Church, by complying with his bid,·
could not obtaina good title in ree to the said land, and should not be c0m4
pelled to pay the amount of his bid. ~ _ A » — l · ; ,
“ Yet the decree of sale made in the cause contemplates the disposal of all;
Mrs; Margaret H0lst’s interest in this land, and whatever interest she has, if
ofany value, may yet be sold, and such I assume was the intention ofthe
court on the decree ordering this reference, `should it be finally determined
that said Mrs. Holst has any interest therein less than the fee. 4 L i l' ' ’ .
“ Whatever interest or title Mrs. Amelia Rogers took under her mother’s -
will, it is conceded, passed to Margaret Holst by the last-mentioned deed of
this lot, and the case of Bowers v. Bowers, wpra, in my opinion, is entirely
conclusive of what that interest is. I can _see little, if any, difference between
the will in that case and this one, the language being almost identically the
same in both, and I think of the same legal effect; and I therefore report
that under her mother’s will Amelia E. Rogers took the legal title for the
joint use and benefit, in common, of herself and her six daughters; and that
upon her death, her interest being for life only, the entire estate will pass to
her said daughters. The interest in this land which passed to Margaret Holst
was therefore only the life interest of Mrs. Rogers, as above stated, and I so
report." I - ` ~ l
Gantt et Patterson, for B, R. Church. , I _
Calvin F. Vance, for plaintifs. y i . .. ,
Hsnmonn, D. J. T-hiscause comes again before me on the report
of the master as to the title of the land purcha_sed and bidvinby B.,
R. Church at a public sale by the marshal under a preyions decree.
No formal exceptions have been filed to this report; andwhile I have
not critically examined the question of the alleged defects in Mrs.
Margaret Holst’s" title to this land, I am satisned from the master’s
report that she. did not takesuch ia title as the purchaser is bound
to accept, and that_ neither a deed from the marshal nor one from
Margaret Holst would convey "to this purchaser the clear and"'un-
doubted character, of title he has a right to demand,. It is,,perhaps, V