Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1884-04-02
THE CASE OF THE ALEXANDRIA
AND WASHINGTON R. r. COMPANY
IN THE II COIIRT


This case was argued before Chief Justice
Waite and Judge Hughes Oh the 9Th and
9Th of February last. 1t is a creditors bill
brought by Alexander Hay, of Philadelphia,
in behalf of himself and all other creditors
for the purpose of ascertaiuing all liens upon
the road establishing their relative priority
and providing for their payment by sale of
the road.
The opinion of the Court was delivered
by Judge Hughes this morning, and is con-
Cured in by the Chief Justice. 1t is print
ed by us in full :
OPINION.
The task of the Court is to pass upon the
relative priorites of the several deeds and
| judgments resting as liens upon the property
of the Alexandria and Washington Rail
road Company, and ascertain the rights
with reference 10 these liens Of the Alex
audria and Fredericksburg Railroad Com
pany in respect to it's claim for betterments.
The priority of the lien of the Bradley
deed over the Kinzer deed is res judicata as
between the two and, as the former deed
antedates all other liens by deed or judy
ment upon the property of the company, it
must have precedence over them all unless
there be something in the objection, that
the guarantee of the city of Washington TO
the holders Of the bonds Of the railroad
company was ultra rires, rs being IN conflict
with the 10th section OF the city charter OF
| 1913. On this subject it may remarked
that there has been direct adjudication by
the court of highest resort in Virginia,
where the property embraced in this deed
lies, that Notwithstanding this objection the
Bradley deed is lien upon the property OF
the A. & w. company as OF the 23d July,
1857. 1t is true that this decree does not,
in technical sense, conclude those who
were not parties to the suit in which it was
rendered; but it carries all the authority Of
a decision of the highest court Of the State
in which the land affected by it lies, render
ed in a case in which the registration laws
of the State were construed by the court
upon question directly raised before it,
independently of these considerations, il
may be added, that the mortgage secured the
bonds and created valid lien Oh the prop
erty When the city took up these bonds
this lien was not vacated. The cancella-
ton of the city's signature on the bonds did
not cancel the liability of the railroad com
pany for their payment. The city might
l
but the subsequent lien holders are in no
condition to contest the title of the city tc
the bonds. 1t is matter Of no importance
ey, or some one else The debt is still ow-
ing by the company and the lien for its So
curity is u valid one.
| So, the conclusion OF the court is, that the
Bradley deed is a first lien by deed or
Judgment upon the property Of the A. & w.
Company dating as OF the 23d of July, 1851,
for the debt it secures as reported by Com
missioner Fowler.
The LennoX deed is really not disputed,
and having been recorded on the 9th July,
1857, antedates and ranks all deeds and
judgments except the Bradley deed 1t is
true that LennoX, the trustee, had personal
notice Of the execution Of the knZer deed
when it was executed; but this notice to
him cannot bind the bondholders whom he
represents who took the bonds without no.
tice. For all purposes Of notice the trust
deed must, in this case, be treated US ex-
ecuted to the bondholders
The Hay judgments, and the claim OF
Fowle, Snowden s Co., as this latter is rep.
resented by the Kinzer deed and by the
decree of the Circuit Court of Alexandria CO.,
rendered on the 25th of May, 1859, must
now be considered Two of the Hay judg-
ments antedated the decree; two of them
were Simultaneous with the decree 1.-THE
two judgments and the decree having taken
effect as Of the fret day of the same term of
the court which rendered all Of them, viz
the 10Th of May, 1882 and three Of the
judgments were subsequent to the decree.
1t will be necessary to consider the objec-
tons urged respectively against the claim OF
Fowle, Snowden s Co., and The Hay judg-
| ments.
First, Of the Fowle, Snowden & Co.,
debt The Circuit Court of Alexandria
county, in a case in which that question
was directly presented before it, decided
that the Kinzer deed was not legally re-
corded in pursuance of the registration
laws of Virginia, and did not constitute a
lien upon the property Of the A. & w. Com
pany. Appeal was taken by Fowle, Snow
den & Co., to the Court of Appeals Of FIr-
ginia the appellants in their petition for
the appeal assigning as a ground of error,
that the court below pronounced the regis
tration absolutely illegal, and not merely
as it should have done, subordinate to the
Bradley deed. The appellate court render
ed general decree of ahirmance; thereby
establishing the validity and fnality of the
decree below. 1t is true that the Judge who
delivered the opinion discussed only the
question whether Fowle, Snowden & Co.,
had notice ofthe previous execution of the
Bradley deed when they took the Kinzer
deed but the decree itself which was the
act Of the whole court affirmed the decree
below generally, and made no such limita-
ton of its aHirmance in its decree as the
individual judge had done Of argument in
his opinion. In very recent case, that OF
Davis vs. BeazIey, IS Virginia i9l, the Sup
RENE Court of Appeals has put the matter al
rest in this State by holding that the grantee
or beneficiary in deed is not allowed as an
officer, to take al acknowledgment of the
deed by the grantor with vew 10 its regis
tration that the certificate of such acknowl.
edgment is invalid, and hence recor-
dation OF it based upon such certificate is
without effect. We are therefore relieved
of the necessity of considering, whether this
court, in an original case, would hold, that
director of a corporation which makes a
trnst decd nrefarrinr him self over nj har ora.