Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-01-19
An Interesting Bank and Real Estate
Case.
FREEDMEN'S BANK AGAINST THE MA
TrogAL SAVINGS BANK.


FREEDMEN's BANK AGAINST THE MA
TIoyAL SAVINGS BANK.
In the Supreme Court of the District In
General Term yesterday the case of the Com
missioners of the Freedmen's Savings aud
Trust company against the National Saw
ines Bank and others, was argued by W. s..
Cox and Hanna Johnson for the Savings
Bank. and Enoch Totten for the commits
sioners. This was a bill TO restrain defen-
dants from selling under a II ia certain lots
In Mt. Pleasant, and in the Equity Court an
the pleadipgs and exhibits it appears that s.
y. Brown was the owner of several lots in
Mt. Pleasant, and In March, 1870, q judgment
was rendered against him and A. r. Brown
as the firm of 8. p. Brown & Son
for "a, 694o5. On June Goth, 1870, the firm
borrowed from the Freedman's SAVINGS and
Trust company, the sum of s10,O 900, for which
Trey gave their promissory note payable in
twelve months after its date, with interest
, AZ ten per centum per annum, and s. P.
Brown executed and delivered adeed of trust
TO Daniel l.. Eaton with the usual power OF
sale in case ofdefault in the payment OF the
note. which was duly recorded on the 9th
day of June, 1870. Several months after
wards the National Savings Bank, made
several loans to the same firm, and TO secure
them took deeds of trust from said 8. r.
Brown, with like powers of sale, on many
lots of ground, in the said District. These
trust deeds bear date and secure the amounts
respectively. as follows: Deed dated July
g. ISL. for loan of $500; July 81, 1871, -;
s. 900; March II, 1sIa, as, 900; April q, 1872,
50 500; April "a. 1872, $500. Al the lots
transferred by Brown, for the security of the
Trust company and the Savings Bank were
subdivision lots of the same tract, now called
Mt. Pleasant as before stated. Default hav-
ing been made in the payment of the note
for $4,000, the Freedman's Savings and
Trust company procured the lots mentioned
in the bill 10 be sold under the power in the
trust deed, and became the purchaser at the
sale, and subsequently sold some OF the lots
to the defendants VINO were made parties
to this suit by the amended bill. But
TO save these purchasers harmless
rom the lien of the Jolly Judgment, the
Trust company gave to each of such purcha-
sers an indemnifying bond. The defendants
in the suit maintained by jolly sued out a
writ of error in the cause, but the Judgment
was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court
Of the United States. Soon after the mandate
was returned to this court, and about the
10th day OF July, 1874, the National Savings
Bank purchased the judgment from Jolly
and procured it TO be assigned to that corpo-
ration on the docket; thereupon a writ of
fCTe JpciGS was sued out by the Savings
Bank on the Judgment and placed in the
nlarshal's hands, and he proceeded to levy
upon the lots OF the plaintiffs mentioned in
the bill. To restrain the sale threatened by
the marshal upon this levy the bill was filed
IN this cause. The question arising in the
case IS, whether or not this judgment now
owned and held by the National Savings
Bank, can be collected ont of the property
conveyed to the Freejman's Savings and
Trust company, until all the other property
bound by the judgment and owned by Brown
at the date of the sale to the Trust Company,
shall have been first sold and the proceeds
applied TO the payment of the Judgment. The
lots bound by this jud gment AID subsequently
mOTtgaged or sold by Brown at different
times to different persons, are chargeabie
with the burthen Of the judgment in
the inverse OF their alienation; that is
10 say, The parcels last sold are to be
charged to their full value and then go
backwards until the judgment is fully paid.
The Savings bank denies notice OF the exist I.
eLce OF Il 9 judgment at the time of taking
deeds OF trust from Brown & Son, and denie
that the I. S. * TT. Co. had not notice OF the
judgment at the time it took the deed OF trust
from Brown 4 Son. They contend that where
there is a paramount lien upon land which is
subsequently, sold or transferred in different
parcels at different times to different per-
SOnS. as purchasers or ncumbrancers, each
without notice OF the former sales or trans
fers, the paramount lien is TO be borne rata
GERS according 20 the relative values of the
several parcels of land. And If there is a
right OF the par OF the prior purchaser or
lncUnbr3ncer to throw the burden OF the
paramount lien on the subsequent purchaser
or fEcuH bran Ger, such & right is, OBVIOUSLY
IQere equity and. like all equities, ONLY
binding on purchasers or incumbTancerS with
notice. They call attention to the fact tina:
the National Savings bank is not charged
with actual notice Of the former deed of trust
given to secure the Freedmen's Savings and
Trust company, and they claim inasmuch
as The former deed OF trust does not embrace
any OF the property named in the deeds of
trust given 10 secure the National Savings
bank, the record of said former trust is not
constructive notice, because the land records
only apply as constructive notice as between
successive conveyances of the same land and
lave no application, where the subject mat
re- conveyed is different, although the gran
Tor may be the same.