The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-29

under section Z3lI, if proved. would nave
prevented the running OF the statute ana
filing at the hearing a general replica
ton only, the defence was limited to the
single inquiry whether defendant and
those claiming under him had been IN
adversary possession OF the land for more
than fifteen years before suit begun. The
burden of proof OF this issue was on the
defendants. Goodell rs. Gibbons. 81 Va.
COS.
3. IL IS not every possession Of land Tor
the period named I'm the statute that
will constitute adversary possession ana
sustain the plea. To be adverse IL must
be actual, exclusive. open, and notorious
and be accompanied with bona-hne
claim OF title against the title OF all
other persons. and be continuous Tor the
period prescribed by the statute. Creek
MUIR Us. Creekmur. 20 Va. 40; chapman
vs. Chapman. 81 Va, Sg1; Williams W.
Snidow. 4 Leigh, H.
I. Hite's possession was In pursuance
OF purchase al sale by public auction
under decree Of the District Court OF the
United States and conveyance TO him
by order OF the court Of the legal title.
Having legal adversary possession Tor
more than twenty years before suit be-
gan. il is not material TO inquire INTO
the regularity Of tho proceedings or the
Federal Court or whether or not the
deed Vested in the purchaser good ttle'
for an adversary possession under
claim or color Of title for the statutory
period will ripen into valid title Whe-
Their the possession be under a good or
bad. n legal or equitable title Reuseris
rs. Lawson. 81 Va. 2}6. Shanks VS..
Lancaster, Graft, 100. Creckmur vs..
! Creekmur. etc. supra.
3. The statute began TO run as soon
as the adversary possession commenced.
JOINT OBLIGATORS PAROL ENl-
DENCE.
Saunders VS.. Prunty. Affirmed Opin-
ion by Judge Cardwen.
w. 9. Galloway. along with {. >.
Saunders. appellant. j. 5. Taylor and II.
5 Saunders made joint bond for N,op
to Hairston. Judgment i'm the bond and
proceeding to enforce lien. The property
Of j. :. Taylor was subjected TO IT'S
payment. which discharged the Judgment.
Some years after suit, out OF when
comes this appeal. WAS instituted by
Prrntv on behalf of himself md other
lien creditors of g.. j. Saunders. 20 sub
ioct his land TO the payment or debts
due them. In "A report by a commission
~ the judgment debt paid i'm fun by j. =.
TAYLOR was made a lien. and Saunders
was treated as q principal or Taylor as
TO this judgment and 4 partial credit as
to Taylor allowed to saunders on account
| or SUBSEQUENT pavmcnfs made by him on
the debt Saunders excepted TO this re-
port. and i'm its confirmation, appealed.
Held: II is a general rule Of law that
the true relations -ubsistiug between seV-
eral parties bound for the performance OF
a written obligation may Doe shown 10y
par0l evidence. Boulware vs. Hartsook
| administrator SO Va, 6sL
The testimony here was not 10 change
the relations of .he parties. but TO show
their trre relations and statement OF
witness IS ncontradictcd that Saunders
tclI him the money obtained from Hairs
ton was for himself that he wanted 20
rlv n. and that ho must not mention the
| subject 20 the other parties 10 the bond.
D. There being no evidence in The rec
ord 10 satisfy this court that the credit
allowed Saunders md complained Of by
| him was not correct. and tho conclu-
| slons OF the commissioner having been
approved by the court below IN the con-
! nrmation Of his report. an appellant court
will not ovo-turn IL unless satisfied that
| it IS wrong The Judgment will be pre-
sur1od 10 Doe right till the contrary is
| shown Shipman VS. Fletcher, 81 Va, AS,
Saunders VS.. Printy, 50 Va. 9-3.
!
JUDICIAL SALES STATUTE OF
FRAUDS.
Robertson VS.. Smith. Affirmed opin-
/ ion by Judge Buchanan
! Commissioners Of sale reported sale Of
| parcel of land for SLs00 cash, purchaser
10 assume mortgage Of $4,000 on 1t ana
also 10 have another parcel, subject 10
| the same mortgage, released from lien
! thereof. Purchaser who i5 appellant
! paid 81 90 cash as earnest but did not
! otherwise comply with terms. They
| asked and got Il rule against him 10
/ show cause why land should not Doe re-
| sold az his risk and costs. Another
rule was had later but no action was
taken on either Subsequently,. ~ the
! purchaser of the other parcel sold TO
| him by the same commissioners, with the
/ representation that appellant had agreed
| to have the mortgage thereon released.
asked for a like rule against appellant.
| who answered that he had fully compiled
/ with the terms of his purchase according
| 10 his contract signed by the parties TO
! the suit. which he filed. and I'M accord
] ance with decree rendered I'm the cause.
! that q deed. as provided for i'm that de-
/ cree had been delivered 10 him. Upon
! In hearing of that rule. and a rule award
| ed against y, purchaser or the othe-
| parcel. the afidavlts Of the commission
/ is assigned as error
Held: /. Upon a motion 20 confirm
| commissioners report of sale. or upon
| "a rule against "a purchaser or bidder ~
/ such sale. 10 show cause why he shat
not be- required 10 comply. courts OF
/ equity can proceed I'm summary man
ner 10 IS the usual practice to allow eN-
] parte ahidavits to be read by either
| party. This is ordinarily proper prac-
! tice. but the trial court. I'm its just dis
! erection may require dispositions 10 be-
| taken. in whole or in part instead of
/ such anidavits 10 give opportunity Tor
| cross-examlnation; or, if necessary, re-
/ fer the matter 10 a commissioner. Sd-
worry VS. Sypher. Wall. ljl, Boyce vs..
| strothor. 70 Va. Sf2. Kable vs.. Mitchell.
9 w. Va. 5i7. . Barton's CHI, Prac.. ll0l
| There was no objection made 10 reading
/ the afidavits. nor anything in the record
| 20 show that tho court erred BOB allowing
| them 10 be read. even If that question
| could De raised the first time In the app
| pcllate court.
| The deed 10 the appellant was executed
| without authority OF the court does n-
| conform to the terms of sale as reported
! and confirmed. was delivered. 10 seems in-
! adyortently. and was null and void as
| declared by tho court I'm its decree.
| o The evidence clearly shows that APP
pcllaut purchased upon the terms and
| conditions stated in the commissioner
| report which terms differed from those
| of the decree under which the commits
| slonors were acting The confirmation
Of the report cured this irregularity ana
e. ali I'D al N...Hs