Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-17
An Interesting Action I'm rrover.

rev days ago the Court in General Term
had before them the case OF Fitch, trustee of
Willoughby, against Dunn. One George REID
was Indebted 70 the defendant Dunn who suC 4
before magistrate in this District, and certain
personal prop erty found here In the possession
of said Reid was attached and sold under pro-
eeediDgs against Reid as a nonresident for the
satisfaction of the debt. Fitch as trustee for
Willoughby subsequently brought an action Of
trover against Dunn Tor the taking and con-
version of the property, claiming Al 900 dam
ages The defendant pleaded that he was not
guilty. and upon this plea the issue was ma lie
up. The jury found a verdict for the plaiptif n
Tor s10O damages. On the trial OF the case the
p'aiIth, to maintain the issue gained, offered
in evidence a certain ehsttel deed Of trust rom
said Reid 70 Fitch. dated the Sd day of October,
1871, ard recorded in Virginia whereby certain
personal property then upon the Selwood estate,
IN stafford county. Va, wss assigned aud trans
TERED - Fitch es secrvity for debt of $3.50.
Tecited in the decd OF trust to be due from Id
Reid ID Westel Willoughby. 1t was also pro-
vided in the deed that any such property as
also be liable for the debt, in addition to Ia at
mentioned IN the schedule. In the deed there
was also the following prOVis- on:
"1be said George Reid Is to have possession
Of said property, but is not to remove the same
from said estate, except by at the time re-
placing such property so removed By other
property of at least equal value, or By imms-
oiatejy applying the proceeds thereof and paw
ing over the slEe - said WillOughby in nv
msnS OF said debt" And further: "Sucb mart
OF Tue crops IS are necessary for the support of
payment
expenses necessary 10 cultivate said f1tats to
pay the hands at work thereon NAV he used bv
MIN until the 1sS Of January next, ard there
HIeL pnth loTienure OF this instrument, pro-
Vided be oecOpi6l said SelwOOd e1tlte as a ten
ant OF said b. +. Gilbert or the owner thereof
but the same shall be applied so as 70 beDeft as
much as possible the stock and other property
on said estate"
To the admission Of this deed in evidence the
Defendant objected, on the ground that it was
tolu, as Teservlng p the grantOr Reid the pos.
session. or the property Nth q power OF disDo l.
uon which was Incompatible with the terms CT
TIE security, and for the reason that it includ 1
perlshable property, which must necessarily
consume In the using, and being void as to such
property was void in the whole, as against cred
1tors. The court OyerTuled the objection, and
the defendant excepted. The testimony then
offered by the plaintiff showed that the prop
eFty taken by the constable was a Part of tn at
mentioned in the dced OF trust, and that the
sane had been removed from Stafford county
10 the District of Columbia by Reid with the
consent OF said WIlloqghby, ana that at the time
OF the removal Reid was not required to re-
place 1t by other property, and thai after such
removal ii still continued in possession of said
Reid, and WIS in his possession when seized
Inc defenCant thereupOn prayed the court To.
instruct the jury eff the Jury liud from the evil
dence that said Willoughby permitted the mort
gagor, Reid, 70 remove a portion of the prop
eEty covered by said deed of trust from the stale
OF Virginia to this District without recurring
said Reid to replace ii at the time by other
property OF at least equal value, such permis-
sion ana such removal as TO the creditors OF
SAID Reid bere, takes the property 30 removed
out OF the operation OF said deed Of trust and
the plaintiff cannot recover" Which insiruc-
tlon the court refused to give, but on the con-
irary instructed the jury as follows: eve think
IL was in the power of those parties by mutual
consent to place that property upon any sphere
OF usefulness, and that so doing would rot
change the proprietary rights to the property
IN Inc corTelatlve possession Of the grantee aud
grantor to the deed, SO that you may take the
case upon TINS theory unprejudiced by the act
OF removal" To which ruling and c69rga tbs
DEFENDANT excepted. The plaintiff eontended
that the deed OF Il ust was q valid instrument nv
the laws Of Virginia, and that the removal t.
TIE District as above set forth did not inyali-
date the plaintiff g lien.
Tie ease was argued for the defend ant by
Mr.. ID. i. TaSgart, and for the plaintiff by MI
Z. >. BUndy, and submitted.