Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-01-24
Decision I'm a Mixed Case.
TF FREEDMEN'S SAVINGS BANK ACT.
a .-r-1o |,

K X Il.
NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK.
This morning, in the Court In General
Term, Judge Humphreys announced the de-
cisior OF the court, affirming the judgment
OF the court below Judge olinl in the case
of the commissioners of the Freedmen's
Bank agt. the National Savings Bank. The
facts in this case are that in March, 1870, one
Jolly obtained judgment agt 8. p. Brown
& Son for 81 ,69i %. At this date g. p. Browa
was the owner of several lots of ground;
more than sufhcient TO pay the Judgment.
In June, 1870, the Freedmen's Bank loaned
Brown q Son $4,000, 8. p. b. giving a note
therefor At twelve months and a deed OF
trust TO Eaton to secure the same, which
deed was recorded. From June, ISL, to
April, 1872, the Savings Bank loaned Brown
& son various sums of money amounting to
$4,000 and took deeds of trust 10 secure the
loan In october, 1872, Eaton sold the lots
under his deed, and the Freedmen's Bank
company purchased them before the execu-
ton issued. The case OF Jolly agt Brown
having been appealed to the U. s. Supreme
Court and being held by supsrcedeas, was lost
sight of, but the judgment is treated by all
the parties as a subsistirg lien. In July,
1914, the National Savings Bank purchased
the judgment of Jolly and Immediately
the parcels of land in the conveyance
10 the complainant with one or two exCep-
tised. In August, IA, a bill was filed to re-
strain the sale and force the judgment to be
satisfied as far as IL could be from the grounds
not included in the complainant's deed, aud
that until the estate belonging TO s. L. B. ,on
June goth, $50, and not involved in the con-
veyance to complaint should be sold and the
proceeds applied TO the Judgment. The court
say they think the decree impregnable, and
the English mode of lacking, mortgages
and liens might exist and the leaning on
The doctrine of actual and constructive notice
would be applicable If our registry laws
were not In force. The possession of real es-
tate would be very uncertain If we were to
depart from the accustomed rule of appealing
record deeds ~pcOrf m n
certain practice OF parol testimony of notice
The opinion quotes the law on prescribing
The f order and priority liens, titles, sc, lsec.
Az. Revised Statutes, act OF April 29tn,
lSsS.) and continues, "the registry Is notice,
however, and so as ii is unassailed for any
OF the causes which avoids 1t. It,
law than mere parOl evidence of notice
This is also the case with the judg-
ment in its relation to the deeds. 1t is prior
and must be satisfied. II was notice to the
world, and would operate so long as I'M
tainted. 1t is no difference that the judg-
ment and the junior deeds are held by the
in the order of priority. y = = The judg-
ment was notice to both and binds ali the
property equally. y Both tie judg
ment and the complainants mortgage must
be satisfied before the last mortgage can
claim participation. The Judgment creditor
has lien upon two funds, the mortgage
upon one only, and the rule is that he must
first exhaust that fund TO which he may
resort and the other cannot. After section
AT has settled "that all deeds of trust and
mortgages shall take effect and be valid as
TO all subsequent purchasers for valuable
consideration tCithOta notice, and as to all
creditors from the time of proof and delivery
to the recorder" Section 44S provides that
1.-two deeds are delivered to the recorder on
the same day that first sealed and delivered
shall have preference in law, and section 40
makes even a title bond or other written
contract in relation to land IL recorded notice
10 all subsequent purchasers.
The Court concludes awe are called upon
by rules too firmly established to affirm the
order and decree of restraint is this case.
Chief Justice Cartier dissented.
Judge Wylie did not sit in the case.