The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-11-19

no lien for the deferred payment Then
Coyner and wife conveyed. together with
other land ten acres of this purchase TO
appellant to secure "a loan By Loan As
ISOLATION. B. having failed TO pay the
81 600 bond held by G., assignee. the ques-
ton is which land must bee subjected first
20 its payment; that still owned by H..
or that which Il. conveyed to COyner.
The general rule being the inverse order
OF the alterations and the land not sold
by the debtor being subject first Of all.
Appellees insist that while no Hen was
expressly reserved I'm the conveyance
from b. TO Coyner. yet IL was expressly
agreed that IL should be retained and was
omitted by mistake, and that In pursu-
auce of said agreement the COyner bond
was turned over 10 c.. and that Coyner
then and there undertook the payment
OF BIS bond, held by &. for like
amount. the payment 20 eNtnguish the
Covner bond TO T.. OF all Of which they
insist appellant had notice. The Circuit
Court so ruled.
Hold: Though an equity constituting
a vendors lien could, as between Il. and
Coyner, be created by paral, about which
no opinion Is expressed. such an agree
ment could not affect the rights OF the
Ioln Association. who are Subsequent
purcha sors for value. unless IT had notice.
Tho records disclose no equity in favor or
b. and the proof is not sufficient 70
charge 10 with notice Of BIS claim. Be
fore IL can De affected by any latent equi-
~ between D. and C0yner the proof OF
such CLAN must be clear and strong.
There was nothing on the records TO put
appellant ON inquiry. The law does not
impose any further risk than is disclosed
nv tho records. cox VS.. Romine. Graft
r.
pRIORITIES.
Blakemore We. Wise &c. Reversed
Opiuiou by Judge Harrison.
Judgment liens against Da'ls as Ioi-
lows: f,,y
oath. one August 10th. all In 1871. ana ii"
favor of appellant, p, ana w, respec'N.
lv. All are liens on two tracts oil i"hu,
on one Of which is prior deco OF uus'
90 i,s f,tlI value. the other unincumherod.
In October. 1891. Davis sold skinner
tbirfy acres. who failed 20 record his
decd I'm March 10. lri Whereby inc
Judgment Of appellant. docketed IN f'p-
,uar,. of that year. attached as a lien
before the deed was recorded. The other
judgments were docketed subsequently
skinner borrowed $2ccO september TO- 1874
and secured same by deed OF trust on
Inc land bought by him of Davis. In THIS
decd appcliant united releasing the zen
Of his Judgment as 10 this lana.
Tho contention f. that inasmuch az APP
,olI.nt held the first judgment lien on
an three tracts OF land and voluntarily
released the skinner tract, he thereby
limited his security to the prejudice OF
T. and w. and should be postponed 10
,bom 10 the extent Of the value or inc
Ind released. The court below SO ruled.
Appeal ,., r. r,,r.
ehaiire securities both sources OF pay
mont must belong 10 the common DEBTOR
,ta eorit,. is not invoked against the
donbI,. secured creditor. and cannot be
,,yoted against the common debtor II
nat course would trench upon the rights
or enurc To the prejudice OF me crrui-
tor entitled 10 the double fund. Adams Eq.
m D.. 272: Russell W. Dandoiph' 90
Graft. Il1-S. .-,.... hoi6 hy
In this case both securities heiu pS
oppellant did NOT belong 10 'he com,
mon debtor Davis. His Judgment pouiu
the land owned by Davis ana that pS
skinner. the purchase money se.H'eu py
Noudor's lien was mere cnose III ae''oN
that would pass 10 the assignee OF 'h'
honds His Judgment was not a zen OF
| this chose i'm action. bur an express std-
,rtorv lien upon the land as the result
~ the failure OF Skinner To record DIS
| dcod +. and w were not injured by APP
nclIant's release Of that lien; they mad
M lion ON that land thor situation would
| ha ,he same II he had not released IL fof
| the primary security OF appellant was tha