Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-13

be aues ID ana recorded. Alter all, II is mt
| Ter at contract whether a lien can lake eject
| WAY not Then, give decd oi trust' ds - On:
cases Z And why retain section, Wniea =
scarcely ever carried inio effect IN nc towns
Mr. SCOTT regarded the whole secslon as
perfectly useless. Ii SIMPLY declares tha', when
The parties conlrac, together, and Teco!i me III,
sfune5t, it shout! have The operation OIL ueel
! Of tiust or mortgage The section did not go lar
enoueh-ior he was in iav i Of granting g.
nuine lien 10 m4s'er.wotkmen. The case, ia
which lie question frs! arose, was where liian
furnishes, not only his labor, but materials also;
and The law provided, accordingly, lien. hu'
this section does mol do this-iI gives lien 70
any mechanic who will contract Tor The lien
He (MT 81 was il tayot Of giving 10 mecaau-
ic lien by operation OF law, when ne furnishes
materials as well as labor. He would not hlv
Inc contract recorle but Limit lis continuance
10 twelve months Tor instance. There is no ne
cessity for recording because the building Is new,
and speaks for itself, and gives notice L, The
| world.
Mr. PITTS had been detained from The House
by severe indisposition, ard asked that The House
pass over this chapter for the present, as ne de.
sired 10 prepare proper amendment. tie lived
in rapidly growing city, where the mechanics
had LIST immensely from the wan; Of lien law.
The present law dii not meet his views.
Mr. BOOTH hoped The chapter would be
passed BY. The section 10 lis present toIn was
perfectly nugalory. The gentleman from Cum
beIland vas wrong in saying thai his pfoposi-
lion had last winter been rejected.
The chapter was passed ~.
Mr. WILLS moved 10 amend chapter l32, or
"Giuciaries generally" so as 10 require The COM
missioner, when requested by legaee Of dislfl>
bulee, 10 settle any accounts between distributes
or legatees
Mr. PRICE thoaeht il would produce great in
convenience and trouble, in finding ont the cis>
tributes.
Mr. WILLS said an estate could not be settled
unless he distributes be known. He desired
The commissioner, IN taking IN administrator
account, 10 take also disrlbuiee account il re-
Quitd. Each one can give proc! OF what has
been advanced 10 him.
MIR. SCOTT was unwilling TO see alterations
made in these sections which contained valuable
matter, although MIR PERROW'S amendment
had produced most mschlcvous elect on the
chapter Mr.. S saw 10 good in Mr.. WILLS
proposition The sections in the Code provide
for the settlement of an estate under the author-
" OF law BY an en!is h,cned commissioner Of the
circu! court, without the delay and expense Of
a chancery suit He is to make the same sen
Element that court in chancery suit would
order Would not the order Of reference for
an admins tration account fr III tsrmini require
O settlement OF the distrbutee accuunt-a set
Element of the whole estate with all parties in
the case 2 He wished this settlement 10 be
mad. in all cases, not to be made dependent on
the request of the parties.
Mr. WILLS had bu. one motive in the world,
and that was 10 be right if possible. lie had
made the proposition under the idea that, &C
co.d!ns 10 the Code, the creditors would be
cal He'd before The commissioner, bat would not
scrutiniZs tho account, provided their debts
were paid. He did not understand that sui
ficicnt authority was by The Code given To the
commissioner to settle the account between The
distributes. Mr. w. said such construction
had been put upon this language by the judge in
bis section CT country. lie wanted The settle
ment 10 be made hual before the commissioner
OF the circu, court
MIR SCOTT pursued us views, and said that
an administrator coa!d not do his duiy, ualcss
he has The whole estate The disiributcc As well
as paymcnt account, settle:
Mr. PERHOW sustained Mr. WILLS slate.
IN III and slc :.
The amendment was lost.
Title 40-0f suits for land or waste.
Chapter 1873 of the right OF entry
Chapter 1916 the summary remedy for
unlawful entry or ucancr.
Mr. PRICE moved 10 amend ID section, on
"person unlawfully kept out 10 be restored, 50
as 10 provide that in case Of new trial, or If a
Cause gees - circuit court and Is sent back 10
tie county court, such causes Shall have prece.
dcnce over oil causes ON the ciS docket. Car
ried
Chapter 1890 the action of cjec,ment.
Sections II TO 20-Hhat is 10 b. proved at
the trial
Mr. PRICE moved 10 strike out Of lac l4,h
section tie words declaring that il shall bo SUI
fcicni for plalniia to shor a better right 10
held the same [Ihc premises than that .: tie
defendant also 10 s.r;,e oat The ID section
Mr. r. nuped the Chairnaa Il the Revision
Committee would asscn! 10 h. mo,ian, as il
would prevent the necessity OF his going into an
argument 10 sustain his motion.
Mr. MONCURE Of S. said in his portion OF
III. Stale there were very lew real actions, and
ne could not say with confidence what would be
me effect il he words were stricken oni; bu. one
Of the 3cvi>ors, Mr.. Patton, hal p'cpaF,d this
chapter with great care, under consultation and
cvdencc Of Two Of III Western JUICES, Allen ard
Fry U0der lhc present Law, j! one pa,ent 10
land is taken out, an! then another patent is
taken ont, the plaintiff cannot recover the land
BIZ proving that The party IN possession has 70
color oitle, and is mere sqnduer The Object
OF Tie section is 10 remedy this evil. Where the
defendant in possession has a priority or con-
nexion with The outstanding lite, then hy this
provision he 'uay plead his better tile, II il can
50 b. called
Mr. PRICE. For the frs! time he had heard
objections to the action of cIectment, which had
been used successfully for three hundred years
II is suit for possession; but this section prono
ses 10 make The question Of title between The
plaintiff and the party in possession upon the
record, ~ analogy 10 the writ Of right. All he
wanted was 10 amend the Code, SO as TO allow
The tenant in possession 10 show that Tie plain
uf has no legitimate claim TO the property. Is
IT not proper that We should protect the tenant
in possession; al least until The plaintiff can show
better title than Eimscli Mr.. ? thought The
provision would operate most iDjuEioasly upoa
The West A tenant in possession may have
been in possession for fifteen years under color
of ,i,c-ye; he would be turned OUT by plain.
tiff claiming under new grant, because The
J tenant in possession cannot prove his conneXion
with an elder grant Mr.. 7. went on to show
now. through The defect of some link in
long chain of title from The Commonwealth,
The dcfcndant may be cut oil from p:or-
ing his tile. This inconvenience is not
| felt By The plaintiff because We allow
him 10 mabe any number of parties 10 his suit;
AMI he has every advantage 0! proving HI.
! color or shadow Of title. The plaintiff should
| have claimed Of the Commonwealth under tic
original grant; but he doc. no! this he claims
under second grant from the Commonwealth,
and with this, tie mere color oil tile, comes IN
and turns out the tenant, who has been IN pos
session for nineteen years Mr. P said there
was only one little; an which is the best title
mus, be left TO The courts There can be only
one good title, and the plaintiff must show the
luo in himself The effect Of this section is
10 merge the writ Of right in the action OF
ciec,mcnt. Mr. P. at souc length examined
the difference of the proceedings in the two
cases. The section hes the determines Of the
wr. Of right, but not is advantages de
mir. P.) had the highest regard for the pu-