The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-12-18

rSacnSu at WHICH tno uOOr WaS smut
against parole evidence
appIehend that up to the time the
deed has been made and recorded, parole
evidence is not only admissible to show
defects in the proce edings, but thar the
burden is on the purchaser to show Il
strict compliance with the law.
| have been referred to the case of Bond
VS.. Petit, 50 Va, y. 414. and many Other
cases decided in this State, announcing
the same doctrine. do not Think the
principle laid down in these eases is ap-
plicabe to the one under consideration. for
the reason that these cases arose under
statutes entirely different from the one
on which the deed in question rests, and
especially is Bond VS.. Petit not authority
in this case, because that was Il bill fled
to en- DIN the clerk from making the deed,
that the defendant, by the very terms
of the statute, was not entitled to its pro-
lection. because the time had not expired
or the events transptred which the stat
utes provides must occur before tie cura-
tive power can be invoked
Chen follows the comments of the
court upon the twelve different reasons
submitted by the plaintiff why the deed
in question should he set aside; but Wi ich
are more or less specifically applicable TO
this case, and are, therefore, omitted)
The,neXt question, therefore, is the con-
0titutiunality Of said legislation as applied
to the facts in tt is case. For, although
the legislature may have attempted to
exclude proof of crtain facts which it had
I not the power to do under the Constitu-
| ton, yet the act is not for that reason
unconstitutional or void. in So far as It's
provisions are within The constitutional
Limitation. Therefore, snch detects, ir-
regularities, or omissions in the proceed
ings complained OF III The bill, as were
within the Legislative discretion and
| power, are now forever hidden from the
eye of the law behind the shield con
| structed by the general hssebn Is, when
it declared that they should not be con
sdered after the purchaser Ii I'll obtained
his deed and had the same lulv admitted
to record.
Though the statute may be u harsh
one, and occasionally work an individual
hardship CT seeming injustice, yet if 1t be
constitutional n court, even for the lave
oi exact justice in each particular case,
dare not transcend its constitutional linn
/ ith'iou by converting itself into legi sla-
! ture. 1t is bt far better that individual
/ burdens he horne than that the well
marked lines separating the legislative
and judicial powers be .detaced or even
denied.
The act Of Februaryl, 1914. provides
! tnhl hlttr The tllne Tor the reQcmp tlOn
thereby allowed had elapsed, the regular
| ity Of the proc ceilings under which the
purchaser at the sale claims title shall
not b, questioned, nor shall the arrear-
ages Z. taxes for the non payment of which
such sale WIS made or such title was
vested, be denied so as to affect such sale
or title. unless such irregulnri,y, CT the
act that such arrcarage did not exist APP
pears on the face of the proceedings in
court, duly common ;ed before the eXp-
ria'ion OF the time for the redemption,
and duly prosecuted 10 u Judgment OF n
decree. 1t was under this action the case
Of Flanagan vs.. Grimrett ct ais, 10 Graf
tan, page 42l, etc that the deed could
not be questioned by parole propf of IA
failure to advertise the sale, as the law
directed.
In the case Of Thomas VS.. Jones, it was
held by the present court that the qneS-
tion CT notice required by the act OF 1895
'9G could not be cnquired into, because
of the provision OF section Gel oil The
Code. Certainly, these TWO enquiries not
permitted in this case were OF more vital
importance than any of the grounds re-
lied upon in the case at bar.
For the foregoing reasons an OF opin-
ion that the plaintiffs bill should be dis
missed; hut do not think the defendant
should have a writ of possession, because
it appears that the plaintiff claims it un
der the Carter title. a.
CALL FOR BANK STATEMENTS
Washington. Dec. IT, The com pt roller
IL.