National Republican., 1876-01-25
A COMPLIGArED CASE.
Decision in the Case Of the Freedmau's
Savings Bank vs.. Tie Nationa! Savings
Bank,

Decision in the Case Of the Freedmau's
Savings Bank vs.. Tie National Savings
Eank.
Yesterday morning, in the Supreme Court OF
the District in General Term, the decision Of the
court in the case of the Commissioners of the
Freedman's Bank vs.. The National Savings
Bank was given by Judge Humphreys, affirming
the decision below, Judge OlIn.) This is a case
in which one Jolley obtained Judgment for
Si.69I o. against ). 2. Brown X SON. and Mr.
Brown was at the time the owner of a number Of
lots Cf ground, whlch were more than sufficient
to satisfy Judgment. In June, 1870, Mr.. Brown
secured loan from the Freedman's bank OF
10000, for which he gave his note for twelve
meptEs and deed Of trust to secure 1t to Elton.
Other sums were obtained, amounting alto
gether 10 about so 00O, for which deeds Of trust
were taken 10 secure the same. Eaton sold the
lots under his deed of trust in Ostoher, and the
Freedman's bank purchased them before execu-
tiOn Issued.
The case of Jolleyvs. Brown \ Son was appealed
to the nited States supreme Court. and being
held 10y superccdeas was lost sight Of, bu: the
Judgment is treated by all parties as substitut-
purchased the Judgment OF JOlley, and had execu.
ticn issued soon alter, and all the lots in the con-
Veyance to the complainant, with one or two eX.
csptions, were levied upon and advertised for
sale A bill was filed in August 1874, to restrain
sale and force satisfaction Of judgment as far as
possible from the lots not included in complain
ants deed, and the decree OF the court below in
May. 49,, was that the estate belonging to
Mr.. Brown on June 70 1870. and not involved in
compIainants conveyance, should be sold toward
satisfying Judgment.
The Court say they think the decree impregna-
BILE, and the English mode Of taking mortga yes
and liens might exist, and the leaning on the
doctrine Of actual and constructive notice would
be applicable If our registry laws were no. in
YeIy uncertain II We were to depart from the ac.
crstCTru appealing 10 tne record OF deeds
and resort to the uncertain practice Of parol testi-
mony o! rOiice. The opinion quotes the law on
prescribing the order and priority liens. titles &c,
(sectiOn 447 Revised Statutes, act of April -,
ls2S,) and continues: THE registryis notice how
ever, and so as II is unassailed for any Of the
causes which avoid il, it must stand as OF even
more force in law than mere parol evidence Of
notice. This IS also tie case with the
Judgment in its relation to the deeds II is prior
and must be Satisfied It was notice to the world,
and would operate so long as untanted. 1t is no
difference that the judgment and the Junior deeds
are held by the same creditor. They must each be
satisfied in the order of priority. Thejudg-
ment was notice to both and binds all the prop
erty eqG3lIy. 80 Both the Judgment and
the complaiIant's mortgage must be satisfied be-
fore the last mortgage can claim participation.
the mortgage upon one only, and the rule is that
he must first exhaust that iund, to which he may
resort and the other cannot. Afte< section ~
has settled "that all deeds Of trust and mortgages
shall take effect and be valid as to all subsequent
purchasers for valuable consideration, without
notice, and as TO all creditors from the time of
proof and delivery to the recorder" section l4S
provides that if two deeds are delivered to the
recorder on the same cay that first sealed and
delivered shall have preference 10 law, and sec
tion Il? makes even title-bond or other written
contract in relation TO land, II recorded, notice
to all subsequent purchasers. In cODclusiOn the
Court says: We are called upon by rules too
firmly established to affirm the urder and decree
Of TeStTa int IA this case.