Case ID: va_94/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "' Harrison, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richmond
    Turnbull v. Mann.
    January 7, 1897.
    1. Liens— When lobe marked satisfied—Section 3498 of Code.—The object of section 2498 of the Code is to afford a summary remedy for having marked satisfied the liens therein mentioned upon proof that the debt has been actually paid or discharged, and was not intended to enable persons to have such liens marked satisfied because liable to be defeated by presumption of payment, or because barred by the statute of limitations.
    Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Petersburg, rendered October 31, 1894, in a proceeding by motion under section 2498 of the Code in which the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant.
    
      Reversed.
    
    This wa,s an application by John Mann, under section 2498 of the Code, to have released and discharged a deed of trust on real estate in the city of Petersburg, executed by a grantor under whom Mann claimed. There was no proof of the actual payment of the debt secured, but the plaintiff relied upon the presumption of payment from the facts of the case, and upon the bar of the statute of limitations.
    
      Willis B. Smith, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Geo. S. Bernard, for the defendant in error.
   ' Harrison, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of opinion that the purpose of section 2198 of the Code was to afford a summary remedy for having the liens mentioned therein marked satisfied, where that duty has been neglected or for any cause has not been performed, upon proof that the debt has been actually paid or discharged, and was not intended to enable persons to have such liens marked satisfied because liable to be defeated by presumption of payment, or because barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment of the lower court must, therefore, be reversed, and the motion dismissed without prejudice to the rights of either party thereto.

Reversed.