The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-06-26


z title 10 real estate except so much as
might be necessary and proper for the
purposes for which II is Incorporated. and
! that bv section 1913 II WAS especially pro-
| hibited 10 acquire more Than forty acres
I'm one parcel the tract Of land involved
| Ina this transaction containing about 800
acres the Court held that the decd to
the l.. and y. Railroad Company was
| neither void nor voidable that n deed 10
a CORPORATION. though forbidden by It's
! charter o, by The general law 70
acquire real r0ps-.y, is not void.
but Is valid ulul assailel IN a
direct proceeding Instituted by the State
| for that purpose. \ proceeding by the
| State 20 dissolve the corporation has al
ways been the punishment prescribed for
| the wanton violation n q charter. and II
may be made 20 follow whenever the
proper public authority shall see 1T 10
! enforce rs application. but no party except
the State can object that a corpora
ton acquires or holds real estate IN
excess OF It's rights. There were other
points considered in The opinion. but
none OF them are o. sufficient novelty or
/ importance 10 he reported.
II. :. Kane Tor and etc, VS. Mann. CIR
| cult Court Of Scott county. Rcve- 5esi.
| Opinion by Judge Cardwen This vas
suit In equity on behalf OF plaintiff ond
such other lien creditors as might be-
| come parties 20 tho suit. etc. 10 cnfOrce
| the lien Of a judgment o. "a particular
! heir OF real properly Of lie -rfendaat.
and the commissioner 10 reporting lens
/ Oh the property and its rental value. Ie-
ports plaintiffs lion. and another lien in
! f1vor OF II. ;. Kane ~ his own right,
| which are hy judgments on notes given
! for the -ul7'1ase price Of the property.
and a vendors Hen reserved 10 - .ure
| tie notes and that the rental value 81
| defendants property Including that OF
| his wife) for five years would pay the
| liens. II. S. Kane then flied his petition
| In his own right. setting forth the Ion Of
| his judgment and the vendors lien, te-
served % secure tho --T1es on which his
t and the Judgment OF HEX, for whom The
| bin was filed, We're obtained, making the
| deed o. conveyance part Of his Dsu
! and praying 20 he admitted as odrty
! plaintiff IN his own right, that tie prop
| erty be sold 70 satisfy the lien, etc. The
decree II the Circuit Court directed all
] q the real estate OF cr-tndant. lnciu ting
| that OF bis wife 10 be rented out tor
! not exceeding five years instead of le-
! creeing a sale 81 the property, m which
! the vendors lien f. reserved. Held > at
| &c was error to in any event include tn
! the rental the property q the wife
she not being party 10 the
! suit. and the liens asserted not fe-
| Ing liens on her property and that The
| plaintiffs upon the record as made We're
| entitled 10 have the vendors lien on The
| property enforced FOR the payment Of
| their debts asserted and secured by the
yeuior's lien. reserved.
| Hartman VS. Ratlif 81 ais. CIR
cult Court Buchanan county. Reversed.
| Opinion by Judge CardweH. Action or
| oiectment.
Held: The plinuff having at the trial
| connected himself with the Common
| wealth bv a regular chain OF tile 10
| th. land I'm controversy except perhaps
MS ~ "a small portion. he was entitled %
recover. unless the defendants MADE god
| their defence Of adverse possession for
| more than ten years prior 10 the inafltu-
| ton Of the action. while lands remain
| un~ieared or In state of nature. thof
are not susceptible ~ adverse rosscss.'r
| against the older patents. cXcop. - ibs
! ~ ownership cffccting q charge 30 thc'T
| condition. and 10 constitute adverse rs
| session there must bee occuoln ", cult IVA
| ton. improvement. or other )pca. nctori-
| Gus. and hahitual acts OF ownership. Lee
! larati0ns alone 81 the junior pateniee
that ne entered upon and took possession
OF the land embarced IN his junior pat
| cnts. when tho surveys hv which me
| grants were made &C. not Sufficient 10 sho"
| such actual occupancy as constitutes ad-
| verse possession. in order 10 disseize or
arrest the other patcntcc from. or ac-
| Quira am adversary possession o. llnd
| uncioarcd and go % state of nature. there
| must he actual occupation by the junior
| uatentee Of some part thereof. or the use
| and enjoyment of some part thereof rs
! acts Of ownership equivalent 10 such ac-
! tual occupation and the acts Of owner
| shin must be such as effect change
FOO the condition Of the land In contro-
! vcrsy. Taken, there are conflicting
| grants 81 the land in controversy TO d.;
| feront persons. and the junior patontee
! enters thcroupon. and takes and holds
| actual possession Of any part thereof.
! claiming title 10 the whole under his
4 grant such adversary possession Of part
| Of the land is adversary possession of the
! whole 90 the extent Of the limits of the
/ younger patent and 90 tha, extent is an
custer Of The seizen Of The older patcntec.
| II the latter has no actual possession Of
! any part of the land within the limits 81
| his grant. but the ownership and 4-tual
| occupancy of the Junior patentee Of a
| tract OF lend al ioiuiug the lands con-
! ycycd hv his Junior ratentee does not
under any circumstances extend that ac-
| tual possession 20 the lands embraced I'm
| The junior patent $50 as 20 effect a dis
seizcn or custer NJ % senior patentce IN
| constructive possession Of the land in
| controversy. Acts Of ownership exer-
! cised by Junior patcntce. embraced IN
/ am older pateutoe while the "~,t- law
| was in operation. ana when tho senior
| patentce could bring no action did not
start the statute OF limitations to nun
against him.
@. Is a verdict IN an action OF eject
mcnt?
A. We jury for tho defendant. SUI
| Gcieut compliance with the fequirs neNts
| of section 21lG OF the code. which Tro-
vides that the right Of tine plai' IN is
proved as 10 part only Of Tire premises.
the verdict shall specify t'at part" O.: e..
| the defendants only ,lat e.uy Q part q
the land sued for.
Booth VS. DOtson Circui. Court NViae
county. Dismiss "a. Do the ground tlmt
| Booth having died before the petition i'm
| his name for the wit NJ error and super
sedeas was presented 70 the Appellate
| Court. the court IS without Jurisdiction
ana the death Of Booth MS claimed being
| admitted as a fact. Held. that the case
| must be dismissed-that such "a suit could
| not be prosecuted ar common law. and
that the statute. sections 1905 and 1901
| does not alter the common law
Rasnic and ais. vs. Banner and ais
| Circuit Court Scott county. Dismissed for
failure 10 execute appeal bond within the
| proper time.