The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-03-27
PROPERTY INVOLVED.
A Court Decision Affecting Much Of. the
Real Estate, In; Brambleion.
MANY HOUSE OWNERS ARE INVOLVED
The Case or Lovit Vs. Aye Finally
Decided by the Court OF Appeals
OF tho State-Thc Location of ,sae
Property-The Effect of the Nc.
cision- Review OF the Case,

a decision of the Court of Appeals yes
terday has affected the title of large
part of the property of Brambleton ward
ana VIII compel the present holders of
the real estate involved to pay one-half
OF Its value over to the Misses Levitt
The case has been hanging in the courts
Tor several years and the decision of the
Court OF Appeals has been looked for
ward to with great interest.
The case is that OF Levitt vs. Nye
which came up In the Corpora ton Court
Ill ms city two years ago The decision
OF the Court of Appeals yesterday uf-
illms the construction of old Mr. Bram-
, ne deed insisted on by the plant
ms who were the Misses Lovitt, and de-
clares them to be entitled to the proper
| " that would have belonged to their
father. Robert G. Levitt, If he had sur
viyed his mother. Robert c. Levitt and
| Henry Lovitt undertook to make parti- |
tioh ana sale OF the property which they
supposed they owned together uheir |
mother having conveyed her life interest
TO them), and the lower court held that
inns partition was good, but the Court
vi appears reHerses this Fart OF the de-
Eisioh OF the lower court, and holds that
ROBERT Levitt and Henry I4ovitt could
not make partition and that the Misses
LoVitt can recover one-halr interest Of
poth the robert LoVitt half and the
hehry Levitt half. In other words, that
theS cannot recover the whole Of the
, hopert Lovitt half. but only half of 1t,
anu that they must recover the rest out
oil the Henry Levitt half. This is prac-
tlcaliS the same thing to the Misses Low
Ht. out AFFECTS twice as much property
as the decision of the lower court ar
tected. only to the extent, however. of
an undivided half interest I'm tho whole
Lorit, property.
, IN the decision handed down yester-
day by Judge John a. Buchanan, the
hrst question: determined the cons,ruc-
v lion OF the deed upon which the defen-
Tan's IN /, error base the right to recover
: fhe dead lis quoted in full Their right
10 recover" says the Court, "depcEds
upon the question whether by the con-
veyance of George Rramble the remain.
der in the land passed 10 the children
l. body"
The granting clause In the deed Is 10
y James g. Levitt for and during her
% natural life and at her. death then 10
the heirs OF her body and their heirs
forever The Court holds that upon
the death of Mrs. Mary c. Levitt her
interest In the land in controversy pass
ed by the law of descent to her mother
a'Ad her sisters equally. The title thus
acquired. It is earnestly insisted. enur-
S ed 10 the benefit OF the plaintiff In
error, and tina; Mrs. Levitt is stopped
from setting it up against him.
c1e decision further says that the
partition of the land between Rober,
II and Henry Levitt could have no effect
- upon the rights of the plaintiffs They
ne were not parties to nor In any way
T. bound by It. When the life tenant Mrs
~ Levitt. died. in 1870. the original plain
e. tins in the case were vested with the
II: title 10 an undivided half interest there
IN. and this, RICH; To the possession there
81 or. Their election TO take as their share
% that portion, of the property which was
la allotted To Robert I.ovitt in the petition
n between him and Henry Lovitt even il
II. the institution of this action by them
VI for the whole of tina; parcel could be
,r treated as an election could not clo.hc
ly them with the legal title to the interest
OF heir co-owner. Henry Iovitt there
in. To acquire his title in the parcel
sued for II was necessary for them 10
have n release or conveyance from him
of those who held under him.
Y The Cour; holds that lin the case at
a Bar neither Henry Lovitt nor his kind
are or could properly be before the
Court except in Il very limited class of
cases of which this is no; one. y cour.
of law In an action of eiectment is gov
er erned by the rigid rules of law, ana de-
cideS according 10 the legal rights alone
ht al the parties. and leaves them 20 set
tie their equal rights in the equity form,
a. where alone they can be properly set
tied.
ps I'VE ara of opinion that the plaintiffs
were only entitled 10 judgment for one
le undivided moieiy OF the land sued for
a, and that the trial court in rendering
Judgment in Their favor for the whole
. parcel erred. and for the error its judg-
ment must be reversed. aHi such judg-
ment entered by this Court as it ought
to have entered"
= Under the decision the property sold
by both Henry and Robert Lovitt he
comes involved, This property is located
on Clay. Reeves. Rose Claiborne, VII
" loughby. and Brown avenues Each
tract is worth about 100000 Those wh7
= bought the Robert Levitt property will
lose one half each Of the worth of the
!. lang, but will not lose the houses and
other Improvements. This half will
be recoverable by the Misses Levitt
either by commissioners or agreement
:, with the owners. The other half of
u their claim must be satisfied out OF the
Henry Levitt property suit
The property affected was formerly
owned by old Mr.. Bramhle, for whom
J. Rrambleton Is named. and he in 1865
made deed giving Il to his relative
: Mrs. Jane c. Levitt for her life, and
at her death IL was TO go To the heirs
OF her body She in her life conveyed
her interest TO her sons. Robert ana
Henry. as did also their sister, Mrs.
Brown. They then parti,ioned as is
above stated. Robert Levitt sold his
] half and died prior to the death of his
a.. mother. His daughters than clio ;-,,a3