knoxcotn

knoxcotn-digest Tuesday, March 20 2001 Volume 01 : Number 130

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:02:21 EST

From: KAT3946429@aol.com

Subject: [KnoxCoTN] Specific Marriages between 1888-1898-Knox County

- --part1_29.120c5016.27e8142d_boundary

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am searching for information on the following families who were married

between 1888 and 1896 in Knox County. My main line is MORTON and I'm trying

to tie in the MORTONs listed to specific named families. Thanks in advance

for any help you can provide. Nina

William R. LEWIS married to Sallie MORTON, 1888

Martha YATES married to Henry MORTON, 1890

Robert IRWIN married to Etha MORTON, 1892

Ella WEISGARBER (WEISGERBER) married to George W. MORTON, 1892

Wiley PHILLIPS married to Amanda MORTON, 1893

Lily CAMPBELL married to James N. MORTON, 1893

Frank SEAVER married to Martha MORTON, 1893

Margaret BRICE married to Robert MORTON, 1893

Edward M. KING married to Minnie J. MORTON, 1895

Mary HUSTON married to William MORTON, 1895

ELLA WEISGARBER married to George C. MORTON, 1896

John WATKINS married to Fanny MORTON, 1898

- --part1_29.120c5016.27e8142d_boundary

Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>I am searching for information on the following families who were married

between 1888 and 1896 in Knox County.  My main line is MORTON and I'm trying

to tie in the MORTONs listed to specific named families.  Thanks in advance

for any help you can provide.  Nina

William R. LEWIS married to Sallie MORTON, 1888

Martha YATES married to Henry MORTON, 1890

Robert IRWIN married to Etha MORTON, 1892

Ella WEISGARBER (WEISGERBER) married to George W. MORTON, 1892

Wiley PHILLIPS married to Amanda MORTON, 1893

Lily CAMPBELL married to James N. MORTON, 1893

Frank SEAVER married to Martha MORTON, 1893

Margaret BRICE married to Robert MORTON, 1893

Edward M. KING married to Minnie J. MORTON, 1895

Mary HUSTON married to William MORTON, 1895

ELLA WEISGARBER married to George C. MORTON, 1896

John WATKINS married to Fanny MORTON, 1898

</HTML>

- --part1_29.120c5016.27e8142d_boundary--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:21:16 EST

From: RMcgi81640@aol.com

Subject: Re: [KnoxCoTN] Specific Marriages between 1888-1898-Knox County

Morton's, Well her goes,

Sallie Morton to Wm R Lewis on October 9 1888

Henry Morton to Martha Yates on October 29 1890

Etha Morton to Robert Irwin on October 3 1892

George C Morton to Ella Weisgarber on September 3 1896

Amanda Morton to Wiley Phillips on February 15 1893

James N Morton to Lillie Campbell on June 18 1893

Martha Morton to Frank Seaver (Severs) on October 29 1893

Robert Morton to Margaret (Maggie) Brice on January 14 1893

Minnie J Morton to Edward M King on December 26 1895

William Morton to Mary Huston on March 30 1895

Fanny Morton to John Watkins on August 18 1888

There is more that you did not ask about, plus Morton's in Union County of

which I am also kin,

Hope this helps,

Robert McGinnis

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:46:47 -0500

From: "Billie R. McNamara" <knox@tngenweb.org>

Subject: Re: [KnoxCoTN] Specific Marriages between 1888-1898-Knox County

Nina -- have you contacted George Morton, the lawyer in Knoxville? His

office is listed in the on-line directories. He may be able to help you

sort out some of the Morton family history in the area. Also, you'll find

some connection to Mortons in Blount and Sevier Counties...

At 09:02 PM 3/19/01 -0500, KAT3946429@aol.com wrote:

>I am searching for information on the following families who were married

>between 1888 and 1896 in Knox County. My main line is MORTON and I'm trying

>to tie in the MORTONs listed to specific named families. Thanks in advance

>for any help you can provide. Nina

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:12:45 -0500

From: "Billie R. McNamara" <knox@tngenweb.org>

Subject: [KnoxCoTN] Railroads Knox County,Knoxville,Tennessee

Forwarded message from a non-subscriber. The answer, I believe, is to

check the city directories to see what's listed. If they didn't live in

the city, though, they might not be in there... And, there were other

railroads here during that time...

Searching for information on the following Railroads Knox

County,Knoxville,Tennessee. How would I go about finding information on and

about these railroads. My Grandfather was a Locomotive Engineer on one from

Knox County ,Knoxville,Tenn.William Edward Cheatham (Ed,or Edward Cheatham.)

He was born in Knox County,1885. Married 1902 Knox County,Tenn. How would I

find out which Train. It could have been the L& n Railroad ?

Knoxville & Charleston (Knox)

East tennessee VA &GA railroad

Knoxville &Kentucky railroad

Is there any place Icould write for this Information.

Thank You

DOT

dssinc222@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:01:21 -0500

From: "Billie R. McNamara" <knox@tngenweb.org>

Subject: [KnoxCoTN] Some good historical reference books

Last night, we went to Elizabethton to hear John Buchanan speak about "the

people of the western waters" and Andrew Jackson's role in their lives and

in development of the area. There wasn't really enough time for Mr.

Buchanan to cover a lot, especially since the group was diverse (some

needed the historical background of King's Mountain, the Rev War, etc.).

C-SPAN taped his lecture the day before in Knoxville -- if you check their

web site each Wednesday when they post their program schedule for the week,

you should find it eventually. While it's available, you can read about

the lecture at

http://www.east-tennessee-history.org/events/lecture.htm

Mr. Buchanan has written two books: _Jackson's_Way_ and

_The_Road_to_Guilford_Courthouse_. I had a chance to look through the

Guilford Courthouse book last night. It is very interesting. A couple of

the historians who were at the lecture said Mr. Buchanan's treatment of

King's Mountain is the best they've ever read.

ETHS is offering a deal on signed copies of _Jackson's_Way_ -- $30.00. If

you order from them in the next few days, they'll eat the sales tax and

shipping. E-mail from their website for details.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:14:52 -0500

From: "Billie R. McNamara" <knox@tngenweb.org>

Subject: [KnoxCoTN] King v. Elrod

Interesting case regarding Knox County cemetery:

King et al. v. Elrod et vir.

[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville

196 Tenn. 378; 268 S.W.2d 103; 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 411

December 11, 1953, Opinion Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1]

On Petition to Rehear May 21, 1954, Reported at 268 S.W.2d 103 at 107.

PRIOR HISTORY:

FROM KNOX.

DISPOSITION: Decree affirmed, and petition to rehear overruled.

COUNSEL: Ely & Ely, of Knoxville, for appellants.

Grimm, Tapp & Carson, and Ray H. Jenkins, all of Knoxville, for appellees.

JUDGES: Mr. Justice Burnett delivered the opinion of the Court.

OPINIONBY: BURNETT

OPINION: [*380] [**104] The bill in this cause was filed asking a

mandatory injunction, the removal of a lock across a

roadway leading to a cemetery and for damages double the amount suffered by

the complainants. The gravamen of the bill is

that the defendants, appellees here, had desecrated and destroyed an

ancient family cemetery in which distant relatives of the

complainants had been buried. A demurrer setting forth numerous grounds was

filed in due season and after argument the

demurrer in all particulars was sustained and the bill dismissed. A motion

for rehearing was filed which after being overruled the

case was appealed to this Court and is now before us for determination.

The bill being demurred to we take the factual situation averred in the

bill as true. It is alleged that [*381] this cemetery was

set aside as a private [***2] cemetery prior to the Civil War and first

known as the "Ferguson Cemetery"; that later one

Lige Flenniken purchased the land and thereafter many Flenniken heirs were

buried in this graveyard and it then became known

as the "Flenniken Cemetery".

In 1944 the defendants, appellees here, purchased a farm in Knox County on

which this cemetery was situated, it being on the

south side of what was then the Tennessee River, now Fort Loudon Lake and

situated on a knoll overlooking this lake. In 1862

ancestors of one of the complainants were buried in this

cemetery [**105] and some time about the Civil War an ancestor of

the complainant King was buried in this cemetery. From that time on up

until 1922 various people were interred in this plot of

ground.

The plot of ground upon which this cemetery is situated is approximately

150 feet by 200 feet in dimensions. The bill alleges

"that to carry out this scheme the defendants proceeded to landscape said

knoll and surrounding grounds with the aid of

dynamite, a bulldozer and other equipment, blasted a number of large and

beautiful trees out of the graveyard and proceeded to

level off the terrain with the bulldozer and in these operations

pushed [***3] aside all of the headstones and footstones of the

graves and completely obliterated the cemetery as it had existed for many

many years." This averment of the bill which we

take as true follows averments that the defendants, appellees here, were

planning to use this knoll where this cemetery was as

the location of a residence. It is further alleged in the bill that in an

effort to carry out this wicked and unlawful scheme of the

defendants that they "proceeded to level the graveyard off for the sole

purpose [*382] of eradicating said cemetery and using

the same for their own purposes." It is further said: "These complainants

charge that the defendants have maliciously and

unlawfully trespassed upon this plot of hallowed ground located upon their

farm and proceeded to wipe its identity from the

face of the earth."

After these averments the plaintiffs aver that what the defendants,

appellees here, have done is a "distinct violation of the penal

code of Tennessee, particularly Code, Section 10886 which section, in

addition to the penalty imposed, provides that the

parties so injured are entitled to recover damages in double the amount of

the injuries sustained and they would show [***4]

the court that these complainants on behalf of themselves and all other

persons interested in said cemetery, are entitled to a

judgment for said damages."

Allegations are also contained in the bill that the defendants have

obstructed the right-of-way of the complainants and others to

the graveyard by stretching a large log chain across the entrance and

placing a padlock thereon and marking this "no

trespassing" and that these activities of the defendants have prohibited

complainants and others from visiting the graveyard, all

of which it is said is a part of the defendants, appellees here, scheme to

obliterate and forever destroy the graveyard.

The complainants then pray for a mandatory injunction requiring that the

defendants remove the padlock and restore the

graveyard to its former condition by replanting trees and replacing

headstones and footstones, etc., then there is a prayer that

the injunction be made permanent and that the complainants be awarded

damages in double the amount of the injuries sustained

by them.

[*383] It is not necessary for us in disposing of the matter, in our

view of the matter, to take up each of the grounds of the

demurrer as interposed in this [***5] case. There are only two

assignments of error, the first of which considers really all of

the grounds of demurrer as a whole and the second is to the overruling of

the petition to rehear.

Ordinarily equity will enjoin an unauthorized encroachment upon, or use of,

lands dedicated to public burial purposes. It is

universally recognized that the sentiment of mankind, the right to decent

burial is well guarded by the law, and relatives of a

deceased are entitled to insist upon legal protection for any disturbance

or violation of this right. 10 Am. Jur., 503. At common

law the disturbance of a grave is an indictable offense as highly indecent

and contrary to good morals. In this State it is made a

misdemeanor by Statute, Code, Section 10886. As a matter of academic

interest the question of suits of various types for a

desecration and violation of the rights of those having dead relatives

buried in a graveyard, is very interestingly discussed in an

annotation in 172 A. L. R. 568. In the accumulative supplement to Am. Jur.,

under Cemeteries, Sec. 39, will be found quite

an extensive statement [**106] and annotation on this subject at page 33

of the supplement.

As we view this case it [***6] largely comes down to the question of what

is the obligation and necessity of a Chancery

Court under the admitted facts. The usual office of an injunction is to

restrain actual or threatened acts which are injurious to

one's rights and not to compel the undoing of the wrong. But of course

there are mandatory injunctions wherein one is

compelled to undo the wrong that has been done by him, but "the rule is

that a mandatory injunction such as asked for in this

case [*384] will not be granted except in extreme cases, and when courts

of law are unable to afford adequate redress, or

when the injury complained of cannot be compensated in damages." Post v.

Southern Railroad Co., 103 Tenn. 184, 216, 52

S.W. 301, 309, 55 L.R.A. 481, citing Gibson's Suits in Chancery, pages 784,

806; 1 High on Injunctions, page 3, 3

Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, page 1359; Hall v. Railroad, 12 A.M. and

Eng. R.R., cases 41. This statement, last quoted,

is expressly approved by this Court speaking through the late Chief Justice

Grafton Green in Union Planters' Bank & Trust

Co. v. Memphis Hotel Co., 124 Tenn. 649, 658, 139 S.W. 715, 39 L.R.A. N.S.

580. And it is a universally well [***7]

recognized rule today. As is said "such an injunction is a rather harsh

remedial process and is not favored by the courts." 28

Am. Jur. Sec. 17, page 210. In granting any injunction whether prohibitory

or mandatory it is "in the exercise of a sound judicial

discretion", 28 Am. Jur., Sec. 20, page 213. "And in conformity with the

settled equitable principles and considerations." It is

also to be noted that when a court is asked to interpose a mandatory writ

it is very reluctant to do so for obvious reasons.

"When the court is thus asked to undo something that has been done, it

must, for obvious reasons, act in a careful and

conservative manner and grant the relief only in situations which so

clearly call for it as it may inflict on the defendant the very

irreparable injury which it is alleged he has done or is about to do

against the plaintiff" Am. Jur., supra. The case in which a

mandatory injunction is granted by the Chancellor should be a clear one and

show that the only real remedy that the party

asking the mandatory injunction has is the injunction. See Union Planters'

Bank & Trust Co. v. Memphis Hotel Co., [*385]

supra, 124 Tenn. 649, 139 S.W. 715, 139 L.R.A. N.S. [***8] 580. Whether

or not such injunction should be granted is a

question that the court must use its judgment on with reference to the

special circumstances of each case, and the court's action

thereunder will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears from

the record that there has been an abuse of such

discretion.

We have very painstakingly and carefully read and reread this bill and the

briefs of both parties. It seems to us, after so doing,

that the Chancellor did not abuse his discretion and was clearly right in

refusing the injunction in this case. The reason that we

say this is that it appears from the facts averred in the bill that the

cemetery had been completely obliterated, the gravestones

graded off, etc., to such an extent where the only obvious inference is

that there was no longer a graveyard there. Under such a

state of facts it would certainly not foist good will to require the

parties to reinstate or rebuild the old graveyard on the spot

where it had been before. There are many obvious reasons of why in the

first place this would be entirely impractical and in the

second place there would always be the ill will of those visiting the

graveyard and those living [***9] around, one toward

another to such an extent that under our American system there would be

constant litigation, bickering and quarreling between

the parties. Under such circumstances it seems to us that the Chancellor

was eminently correct in denying the injunction.

This being true of course then there was no ground for equity to take

jurisdiction. When equity had no jurisdiction the court of

Chancery had no right to award unliquidated damages under the rights of the

parties as alleged herein. See Union Planters'

Bank & Trust Co. v. [*386] [**107] Memphis Hotel Co., supra. This being

true a statement from Gibson's Suits in

Chancery, 4th Edition, pages 257, 258, Sec. 289, is particularly applicable

because now the parties are left to their right in a

suit for damages. Judge Gibson said:

"There are cases where pecuniary compensation by way of damages is

manifestly the appropriate remedy, and a

specific performance impracticable, if not impossible. There are

matters which estop a complainant from setting up

what would otherwise have been legal or equitable rights, and thereby

defeat his suit.

"In all such cases, and, also in all criminal cases, and cases

of [***10] a criminal nature, a Court of Equity

refuses to take jurisdiction, because there is in them a manifest

want of Equity; and bills in such cases may either

be dismissed on motion for want of Equity, or special demurrer will

lie to the bill."

As above said parties who desecrate a graveyard as alleged in this bill are

subject to indictment at common law and likewise

under our Code, Sec. 10886. Courts of Equity universally do not render

their aid to enforce a penalty or a forfeiture but leave

the party to his legal remedy. Gibson's Suits in Chancery, page 262, Sec. 296.

For this reason it seems to us that the Chancellor was correct and we

therefore must affirm his decree and dismiss the bill and

leave the parties to their remedy at law and whatever prosecution seems

necessary under the criminal statute.

------------------------------

End of knoxcotn-digest V1 #130

******************************