The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-07-30
[From the Wy,heyllle Enterprise.1
Supreme Court OF Appeals.

THURSDAY, Ouif 10 80.
John c. Calhoun us.'Rufus N. Wittianas.--
Appeal from Smyth county. Pendleton
for appellant; Gilmore for appellee. De-
cree affirmed, Judge Anderson reading
the opinion Of the Court.
This case settles point OF importance as
to the homestead exemption in Virginia.
The appellee having brought bill to en-
force the lien OF judgment against appel
liant, the latter, who was q hoUSeEeeper, but
unmarried and ,oithout family ercept his
employees and domeStics, claimed eXemp-
ton from the lien under the homestead
law, and, being denied that privilege BY the
Circuit Court, appealed, but, as above
stated, unsuccessfulIy, this Court unani.
mously holding that in the phrase |" house
holder or head OF family" as used in our
Constitution, the alternative branches OF
the phrase are meant to be the equivalents
OF each other, and householder to be
taken in the sense OF cone who has house
hold" and not in the other sense OF cone
who holds house."
Joseph B. PIERCE Us. Idrdy6 Williams ana
others.-Appeal from decree OF Circuit
| Court OF Montgomery county. Johnston
Il Trgg for appellant; Terry. Tompkins,
Davis, Kent, and Boiling for appellees.
Decree reversed and cause reDanded,
Judge Anderson reading the opinion.
This case is of interest to all concerned
in the enforcement OF partnership debts
against the individual property OF the part
nerS. In the court below decree had been
made for sale OF the lnnds OF certain OF
the partners 10 satisfy judgments against
all the partners for debts Of the firm
Of PIERCE, Hale q Co., unless each OF
said landholding partners paid of an
chnrn ~ hn >nrf,, hnhfC a.
creed in the cause, Notwithstanding the
Court had before it all the partners and
their property; and it was claimed that
their standing as between themselves on
the partnership account was very different.
For this the decree is reversed, the Court of
Appeals holding that, pursuant to the ordi-
nary principles governing the case OF eOm-
mon debtors, before any decree subjecting
individual property to pay partnership
debts, court Of equity, having all the par
ties before it, ought, whenever it can be
done without injury TO the creditor, first to
settle the accounts between the partners, so
as to ascertain bow much they should re-
spectivcly contribute to such payment, and
then to subject the individual property OF
each primarily only to the payment of the
share so ascertaincd against him, and for the
rest OF the Indebtedness only so far as it
may be necessary to supply deficit on the
part OF any other partner, and in like pro-
portion.
Gates and Clark Us. Robertson and Others
Writ OF error to Judgment Of Circuit
Court OF Patrick county. Penn IL Ly-
brock for plaintiffs in error; Campbell d.
Triyg for defendants in error. Judgment
affirmed, Judge Christian reading the
opinion.
This case settles point Of Importance to
all concerned in tax-titles. The defendants
in error holding land in Patrick county
under conveyance to them from one
Terry, mude IN 1862, but which was not re-
corded until after 1866, the same in 1866
being returned delinquent for the taxes OF
that year, and subsequently sold by the
treasurer and conveyed by the clerk Of that
county to the plaintiff in error, under the
tax laws, the latter theleupon brought eject
ment for it; but the parties submitting the
case 10 the Circuit Court without jury,
judgment was rendered for defendants, and
this Judgment, on 4 bill Of exceptions setting
out the proof. was by writ Of error brought
here, where it was contended for the plain.
tiifs in error that the proceedings under
the forfeiture laws were in all respects un'
Improbable, and that though by the statute
only the title Of Terry was vested in them
as it aoQS vested in him at the commence
ment of the year 1866, yet this was quite
sufficient for them, for the reason that
Terry's deed to defendants IN error moi
having been recorded prior to the tax sale
nor known to them, was under the record.
| ing laws void as to them. This view was
however, rejected by the Court, which,
passing by all questions OF irregularitl
made by the defendants, held that the case
| bv the true construction of the statutes
touching it, was not within the recording
acts; and hence that Terry bad at the com
mencement OF 1866 no title to said land, and
so plaintiff IN error could have none.
Huffman Us. LETTERS Administrators Writ
OF error to Judgment OF Circuit Court of
Craig county. Ronald for plaintiffs in er.
ror; Strause and Marshall for defendants
in error. Judgment reversed, Judge
Burks reading the opinion.
The only question in this case was Whe.
| Their the sheriff OF. Craig county, who had
in his hands for levy a il. ia. in favor OF
LetfePs administrator against one Mozart.
ney in April, 1870, when Mccartney had
personal property enough to have satisfied
it, was, or was not. liable for the debt, his
excuse being that Mccartney had claimed
the benefit OF the homestead exemption, of
which he had notified the plaintiff IN the
| eAeCuliou, anu lueicupul ueulunucu al
indcmnifying bond, which had not been
given. This excuse the Circuit Court
had held insufficient, for the reason that the
statute passed few days before, prescribing
the manner in which debtor was to avail
| himself OF his homestead right, had required
| it to be done by deed, of which statute, in
| the opinion OF that Court, the sheriff was
| bound to take notice, though in fact igno-
rant of il. But in this opinion this Court
! did not concur; but considering that the
| sheriff might demand an indemnifyiug bond
! in every case OF reasonable doubt, and that
this was such 4 case, excused the sheriff,
Iurpin Us. Saunders.-Writ OF error to
Judgment OF Circuit Court Of Floyd
county. Dennis 81 Tompkins for plain
tiffs in error; Taylor Il Phegar for de-
PENDANTS in error. Judgment reversed,
Judge Staples reading The opinion.
In this case the material question:, and
that on which The case turned IN the opinion
OF this Court, was whether the possession
of plaintiff below was adverse on not to
senior grantee. Plaintiff below, claiming
under a Junior grant, had brought eject
ment against defendant, claiming under 4
senior grant, and Of course could entltic
himself to Judgment, il at all, only by pre-
scription. This he sought to do by means
OF the possession OF one Simpkins, who.
having taken possession OF small part OF
the land in controversy originally as a
souatter, had afterwards, and long enough
prior to the ejectment to have barred the
senior grantee, attorned to plaintiff, but
by q merely oral arrangement known,
SO far as appeared, only to themselves.
and after this again had accepted Wrltten