The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-13


Copeland vs.. Copeland's administrator;
From the Circuit Court OF Loudoun. Re-
vcrsed. Opinion by Cardwel, Judge.
This opinion merely discusses the weight
/ OF testimony I'm the case. and enunciatos
no new principle Of law
CHANCERY PLEADING.
Lennon etc. VS.. Herbert. trustee. From
the Circuit Court OF Fairfax. Affirmed.
opinion by Rely, Judge.
T'hc Court is not called upon 10 express
al opinion on the merits of this case. the
rulings being mainly upon questions OF
charceIy pleading and practice.
Held !. Though a complainant have
complete remedy at law. and his bill al
lege no sui ceut ground for equity juris-
uicti0n, sim n decree rendered thereon
would dot be void and liable to collateral
attack The bin was flcu IN and the de-
cree made ly a court of general Juris-
diction over The subject matter Of equi-
table iights. IL tcrcs' $. and remedies. 1.-THE
power 10 hear and determine a cause Is
jurisdiction The decree might bc crIo-
ne0us. yet conclusive until reversed or
vacat'l. This court could not determine
whether the c1sc was one Of equitable
jurisdiction or not without IN inquiry
into the fats ana where inquiry is neces-
sarv the decree however erroneous, IS not
void. Leigh. 49, 49, Graft. S23, JOS,
10 Graft 81. 326. and Cardoza, sheriff, vs..
Erps. sergeant. decided at the last term.
g. "The proceedings and judgment of
court OF chanccfy or OF a court clothed
with equity pov crs arc not necessarily
null end void because the action IS not
one which comes within .he scope If the
equity jurisdiction in the common ac-
equation OF that phrase or IN otaer words,
because tho claim IS one FOR which there
is q flll. adequate. and complete remedy
az law
II such court should hear and decide,
according 10 equitable methods. a case not
within the scope of equitable jurisdiction.
because both the primary night invaded
constituting TIE cause OF action and the
remedy granted were wholly legal, ana
belonging properly 10 the domain Of law
courts. such judgment, however erroneous
and liable 10 reversal. would not necessar-
lily be null and void. Pomeroy's 10.
Jurisp.. section l29. $50.
Until the deccee H. reversed IL IS binding
ana conclusive II the case. as presented
by the bill, was Of sucn character that
the court was bound 10 hear and deter
mine whether IL had Jurisdiction 10 grant
relief. "a Ala. 81. 'S3
An adjudication that n particular case
is of equitable cognizapce cannot be dis
turbed by am original suit. nor decree
DC assaied for erroneous rulings. I'm
collateral proc, c1Ine such adjudication
is not ,cid oven IL erroneous. j.. L. 5.
Rep, 3J2, 80.
p As 10 removal Of tho cause. The
court may surely DO by the consent OF
nh the parties what it would have a rlght
20 do upon the motion Of any one Of them.
Consent is in eject a motion by all the
parties. and a guardian ad Item for IN
FAINT parties may consent for them ana
such consent is valid. Va. Code Cso)' ch.
H. section Q; s. Va. 5SS.
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.
Williams. etc. vs.. Watkins. etc. From
the Circuit Court Of Charlotte. Affirmed.
Opinion by Harrison. Judge
Appellant recovered judgment against
appellee. September 1882. for $500. Exc
cution issue forthwith. In October appel
liant sued out garnisnmcnt 10 subject bona
for $1,000 due appellee by ., secured by
decd of trust. which was served ON appel
lee. two days later. Trustee adj
vertisod trust subject for sale i'm Febru-
airy. 1888. ard appellant enJcined nm
from selling TN the further order of the
court. Injunction dissolved September. 's5,
bin dismissed. and appeal In January
'qs. apncllee executed homestead deed,
setting aside, first. The $1,000 bond, except
a part thereof assigned rs collalcrdI loi
another debt. and second, all ms mousse
hold and kitchen furniture. In August
'q2 he executed another homestead deed |
Getting aside the same subjects, fully de-
scribing the 81 900 bond, and fixing Ndiue
OF 500 on the furniture.
Held: l. IL is unnecessary 10 ofcide /
whether the general description All my |
household and kitchen furniture, Is
sufficient compliance with the statute. !
If il were not. the defect woul not ~
validate the whole deed and deprive ip- !
pelloe Of his entire homestead ,ton /
wel-scttled principles the deed VIII DE I
upheld 10 the extent that the -rJO'fty !
selected as homestead Is listed thvlein |
i'm the mode prescribed 10y law. an each !
deed the bond is fully described a. re-
ouired bv statute. and both are good
homestead deeds 10 the extent oil that
debt
Tie assignments OF the bond "a cc-
lateral in September. 1872. and in fhrl-
airy. 1898. after the first homestead oeed
had been made, appellant insists Were
roale after full notice 10 the lsNgnee
OF his lien. and that, therefore. assignee
took subject TO his paramount lien.
Zine contention Us not sustained as 20
the first deed. and IS by no means clear
as 10 the second. IN any event. the :leht
of the assignee 10 the amount 0@e r.-
der the assignment is not affected by said
lion. because al the time II was made
lppenee had claimed the property as
.iered as homestead, and held IL Tree
from appellants lien. and had the right
10 pledge IL as security TO raise money.
go Graft. 4S.)
II was appclecs homestead estate that
be assigned the second time. The as
iignec was not concerned 10 know what
claims existed against appellee prior 10
Inc date Of the homestead deed, but only
al that time in knowing that the -ro-
lerty pledged had been claimed and was
held as a homestead exempt from sucl
claims.
Appellee had a right al any time TO pay
lac debt for which the bond was ss-
signed as collateral, and certainly then
he bond would be his, and be protected
.o him by his homestead deed.
o The general rule Us that debtor
nav (his wife concurring. where such
concurrence il required sell his home
-tead and deliver possession without sub
Getting IL to his general debts or TO any
len not made specific by a valid contract.
IL has Ions been settled In this State
hat the homestead may be waived and
nus made subject 70 debt. which is but
orm OF waving It. II Is equally we'll
iettled that those claiming the home
,tead may cucumber il by specific lien,
md thus subject II to sale and alienation
completely divesting themselves of the
lille TO the homestead. go Graft, supra.)
The statute-Nirginia Code. section
.iig-ciearly contemplates that even I'm