The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-12-14
SUBURBAN TERRITORY.
Important Opinion About the Record.
Il. alton Of Deeds.

.#.. r
JUDGE FITZHUGHS OPINION AS TO WHERE
DEEDS SHOULD BE RECORDED AND JUDO
MENTS DoGKETED FOR PROPERTY LYING
IN THE COUNTY oF ,HENRICO AND WITH
In ONE MILE OF THE CORPORATE LINZ
ITs-THE Law ABLY DISCUSSED.
;. Tn the case OF Burgess UersAs Burgess
and Frayser, &C., Judge Fitzhugh, OF the
Chancery Court, Wednesday rendered the.
following opinion: =
The first question to be decided in this
case is whether the Chancery Court OF tue.
city of Richmond bas Jurisdiction, so far as
regards g the dorketiug of judgments" and
'athe recordatlon in the mode prescribed by
law Of deeds and other papers required by
law to be recorded" over the territory out.
side OF the corporate limits and within one
mile OF those limits. ~
think it has. r - -...r. ...:-.rrlE
BY the act establishing this court it was
authorized TO exercise exclusively all juris-
diction then vested in Circuit or Corporation
Courts concerning the decketing OF iudg-.
ments and the recordation OF deeds. In
other words, the jurisdiction which at the;
Court was vested in the Circuit and Corpo-
ration Courts OF the city OF Richmond, or
either OF them. was transferred to the Chan
Gerry Court. So that the latter court now
has all the Jurisdiction over those subjects
that the Circuit and Corporation Courts had
when the Chancery Court was established.
See section g.. chapter 155, Code Of 1873,
as amended acts 1874, p. 224.
Then ,,,
THE FURTHER QUESTION
arises whether at the time Of the establish
ment OF the Chancery Court OF Richmond
the, Circuit or Corporation Courts of the city
OF Richmond, or any or either Of them, had
Jurisdiction in regard TO the subjects under
consideration over the territory within one
mile Of the corporation limits north of the
James river. Ii they or any OF them had such
Jurisdiction It was by virtue OF the act
above mentioned transferred 10 the Chance
~ Court OF Richmond. It Is argued by
counsel for defendant Davis that the Cir
cult and Corporation Courts, whose powers
and Jurisdiction were defined in the acts OF
1S69-'7O and subsequent acts, were ne,1
courts, constitutional courts, created by ana
deriving their authority from the Constltu-
ton of the restored Government OF Vir-
| ginia, and: were in no sense continuation OF
| the old courts. -...,-..-...-.
! This position is not tenable.
T In Chahoon's case, 81 Grat., S27, the
1 Court OF Appeals held that the Hastings
Court OF Richmond was continuation and
succession Of the Corporation Courts then
in existence, invested with the same 1urls-
dicton and powers, subject to such iuris
diction and changes as were made by the
Constitution, or might be made by acts
there passed. See also Jordan's case !;
25 Grat., 949. ------.s..-----
1 I...- -. THE JURISDICTION
over the subject Of docketi1& judgments
and recording deeds were the7s9an the Court
of Hastings of Richmond. See acts 1866
'67, D. 53S; Code 1878, chap. ia, sec. s.
And that court had both civil and criminal
Jurisdiction. Code 1860, chap. l67, sec
I 4. In Jordan's case, supra, the Court
of Appeals held : That the acts con.
Herring criminal jurisdiction outside oi
1.-THE city limits to the distance. of one mile
had never been repealed, and must be helC
to be still in. force. The Court declined Il
determine whether the jurisdiction in civi
tmatters over the same territory still remains
in the present Hastings Court or has beer
distributed among other courts. 1t was no
necessary in that case to decide that ques
ton. But 1t will be observed that the act
to which the Court refers as contained il
the revisal OF 1860 (Code OF 1860, cbapte,
lot, section 4. suprd.) }, and as never repeal
ed, but as still in force, embraced both ciyi
as we'll as criminal jurisdiction. There ha
been no legislation, so far as l have seen
discriminating between the civil and crimi
nal jurisdiction Of the Hastings Court t.
which the Code OF 1860 referred; so that
the criminal Jurisdiction over .
THIS OUTSIDE TERRITORY
was unrepealcd and in full force, the civi
Jurisdiction was equally so, for both classe
! OF Jurisdiction were created By the sam
acts, and both remained equally nnimpair e'
so long as that court existed. When upol
the organization of courts in Richmond un
der the existing Constitution, tine old Cour
, of Hastings referred to in the Code of 1856
; rs above stated ceased to exist, th
: functions, powers, and Jurisdiction o
that court were distributed anon!
other courts. It's criminal jurisdiction
within the corporate limits and one mil
beyond, rs aforesaid, was transferred to tn
present Hastings Court, and its civil luris
diction,- Quoad, docketing judgments, ant
!, recording deeds to the Chancery Court, n
was seen by the 9th section OF chapter 10
OF the Code Of 1878, rs amended.
think 1t is quite clear from the doctrln
. established by the Court of Appeals in TIT
case Of Blackford, &C., Us. Hurst, &c, 2
Grat., 2O3, that prior to the establish
tment Of the present Hastings Court and 0
the Chancery Court of the city Of Rich
mond, the Court of Hastings to which tn
! Code of 1860 refers (section 1 of chapte
;. 1871 had jurisdiction, civil and criminal, no
only within the corporate limits, but ais
for the space Of one mile without ant
around it on the north side OF james river
and in this respect was in the same situa
ton the city OF Lynchburg was in the cas-
last cited. +.
THE COURT OF HUsTINGs
OF Richmond having jurisdiction one mil
beyond the corporate limits, as Lynchbur
had. all deeds, &C., in respect 10 propert
!, within the corporate limits proper Of Rich
mond and one mile beyond, as aforesaid
were required by the act OF January 1G
[ 1867 (Acts OF 1S6G'-67, page 53e), to be re
corded in that Corporation Court. An
| this was so for the reasons stated in Black
ford Us. Hurst supra. This requirement con
t tinued until the Court of Hastings ceased t
: exist. When that court ceased its jurisdic
ton concerning the docketing Of judgment
seen, was transferred in its full extent t
the Chancery Court. 1t follows therefor
that, as the property in question was and
within one mile Of the corporate limit
north Of the James river, the recording Q
the deeds Of ..ust in the bill mentioned i
e the county OF Henrico must be regarded q
nullity, and their respective sprioritie
must be regarded as fixed by the dates o