Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1895-11-29
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

THE SUPREME COURT Of APPEALS.
DECISIONS IN AUGUSTA COUNTY AND
OTHER CASES.
/ In the Supreme Court of Appeals al
Richmond on Thursday last, the following
opinions in cases of interest in this locality
were handed down:
Il THE LIGHTNER ESTATE.
Il Lightner VS.. Lightner. From the Circuit
Court of Augusta county. Lower court
i affirmed, Judge Keith delivering the opin-
ion.
This was case in which Charles and
John Lightner. sons of the late Hon. A.
B. Lightner, claimed to own the farms OH
which they lived at the time their father
died. The other heirs of A. B. Lightner,
and his creditors, claimed THAI the two
farms were part of the general estate OF
the deceased and not the individual proper
ty of Charles and John, and being part of
the general estate were subject to all claims
upon it. The court held that the two
farms were part of the general estate and
decided in favor of the heirs and creditors.
THE sTRIBL1NG SPRINGS PERSONAL
PROPERTY.
| Braxton, trustee, VS.. Bell and others.
From the Circuit Court of Augusta coun-
ty. Lower court reversed. Opinion by
Judge RELY.
Bell sold Chichester & Stuart, April L,
1888, the Stribling Springs for $15,0 900, to
be paid in instruments, vendees to
give bonds secured by deed of trust
on the land and also on any personal prop
erty they might put thereon. This con-
tract of sale was admitted to record July
8, 1855. Deed conveying land by vendor as
of same date, but not acknowledged till
October Sd. A deed of trust, OH the land
only, of like date, was not acknowledged till
October 5th. The vendees put a large
amount Of personal property on the place,
but deed of trnst Oh the personally was
never made. On October 10, 1893. e. & s.
conveyed to Braxton their personal prop
erty by deed, in trust to secure their cred
itors other than Bell, which deed was ad-
mitted to record, as OF its date.
| The controversy is between Bell and
Braxton, as to the right to the personal
property.
1t is not contended that Braxton had
actual notice of the contract of Bell with
G. & s., but that he had constructive notice
| by reason of the recordatiOn of that con-
contract.
Held, l. Collating sections, 2463- 2465 of
the Code, it is plain that but one species
of contract mot being deed), relating to
personal property is authorized to be re-
corded, and that is one made Gin consider
alton of marriage. - Recordation of such a
contract, therefore. except it be in consid-
Grafton of marriage, is nullity, and con-
stitutes no notice to anybody. Where a
writing, which the law requires to be re-
corded, in order to affect creditors and
subsequent purchasers for value without
actual notice, is improperly recorded. eth
Ell because not duly authenticated, or for
other reason, even in that case its record
alton is not notice, Minors ms. Vol. 2, p.
1865 81, IS Va. 491, II Va. 90.
2. In this case, Bellhaving an equitable
right only, and Braxton, as trustee, being
a bona fide purchaser for value and with
out notice, Braxton hath the better title.
CRAWFORD sIMMs' PETITION FOR WRIT
OF ERROR.
This case was the application Of Geo. w.
Koiner to Judge Grattan of the Hastings
Court of Staunton for permission to in
spect the ballots cast In the election of
November 9Th for members of the House
of Delegates. Judge Grattan granted the
the application, the inspection to be made
under the supervision Of an officer of the
court. Crawford Simms petitioned the
Court of Appeals for a writ of error to
Judge Grattan's order. The court refused
to grant the writ.
SHENANDOAH LAND AND ANTHRACITE
COMPANY.
| Case of the Shenandoah Land and Anthra-
cite Company VS.. Hise. From the Circuit
Court of Augusta. Lower court affirmed.
Judge Cardwell delivering the opinion.
OTHER CASES FROM THIS CIRCUIT.
Davis & Snapp VS.. Poland. From the
Circuit Court of Allegheny county. Re-
I versed. Judge RELY delivering the opin-
ion.
Efinger s executors VS.. Kenny, trustee
FROM the Circuit Court of Rockingham
county. Reversed in part and affirmed in
part, Judge Buchanan delivering the
opinion.
Stull VS.. Rich Patch Iron Company.
From the Circuit Court Of Allegheny eoup'
ty. judgment reversed, Judge Rely
delivering the opinion.
Buena Vista Company vs.. McCandlish
& Cloves. From the Circuit Court Of
Rockbridge county Judgment reversed
Judge Harrison delivering the opinion.
Town of Clifton Forge VS.. Allegheny
Bank, and Town of Clifton Forge VS.. Brush
Electric Company. From the Circuit
Court of Allegheny county. Affirmed,
Judge Harrison delivering the opinion.
Barton executors VS.. Ridgeway 3 admir-
Petition to rehear decree entered at the
term of this court at Staunton. Refused.
School Fund AppoFtjonmeat:
! Superintendent of Public instruction
John 3. Massey, has issued circular ap
Forthcoming the school fund consisting Of
accumulated interest on Investments of thu
l..