Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-11-19
DECIDE MANY CASES
ELEVEN OPINIONS HANDED DOWN
IN THE surREMD COURT.
ysB TENNESSEE BOUNDARY LINE.
mi. yexcd Question Passed Upon
.soin--Causcs Involving Priorities
Of Iiens-Tltle to Vast Estate
Many Appeals Passed Upon.

Yesterday was an interesting, as we'll
.s husy. day in the Supreme Court OF
Arreals OF Virginia. This was the first
oninlon-day since the beginning OF the
oo,,r,s session here. and decisions were
..,Aered IN eleven cases that had been
srr,cd In stanton or wytheville. A
tsrge number OF appeals were passed
upon. two cases were argued. and Judge
John H. Ingram, OF Manchester. pre-
entcd 10 the court the resolutions
adopted by the bench and bar OF Rich
mond in memory OF Attorney General h.
Taylor Scott Opinions were handed
down in the following cases:
PRIORITIEs, sc.
Evans Brothers VS. Roanoke Savings
Bank Reserved. opinion by Keith, p,
Buchanan, j.. and Harrison, j., dis
senting.
N owned a lot I'm Roanoke, on part OF
which X. had given a deed OF trust TO
secure the Old Dominion Loan Associa-
ton 81 900. which was admitted to record
october 8. 1892. and constitutes the nrst
lien on that part Of the lot covered by
The deed.
The next lien was a deed OF trust also
Given by r. TO secure NJ. the payment OF
,Vo negotiable notes for 800 each. dated
october Is. 1852. and payable. respectively.
a, twelve and eighteen months. This
6ead OF even date with the notes, was
admitted 10 record as Of It's date. and
constituted a first lien upon that portion
~ the LOT not covered by the former
doed and the second lien upon the por-
ton so covered. With these existing
rsns II. borrowed of the Covenant. &c,
Association OF Knoxville. Tenn, $3.50,
rendering a deed Of trust upon the part
NJ the lot on which there was only the
ion 10 secure NJ. Meantime. the notes 20
NJ had been endorsed 10 the Roanoke
savings bank, which holds them as an
Innocent purchaser for value.
before the Knoxville Company paid
over the money 1t had the title examined.
and ascertaining the existence OF the
lens refused to make the loan. There
mon X. induced NJ, the apparent owner
of the first lien securing the two s4OO
yotes (Which the Savings Bank now
owned. but Of the transfer OF which the
Enoxvllle Company was ignoranO, 10
enter on the margin Of the deed-pook IN
which the encumbrance was recoroed
that IL had been satisfied to her, the
effect of which was to release the eneum~
brance. Code, section 2l9S. Thus the
Knoxville Company became the nrst
uenor upon so much OF the lot as was
conveyed TO trustees 10 secure the loan
made by IT, The equity OF the SAVINGS
Rank was not affected. 1t had acted In
good faith; had lent its money after an
Examination of the record, which showed
,bat ina notes purchased by II were Sc
lfaV, vet " "a
combination between the original payee
OF the notes and the grantor in the deed
NJ trust the lien was marked "satisneu'
and the legal title OF the trustee In the
deed to secure the notes, the beneht Oh
which accrued 10 II by the assignment.
was by this fraud defeated and rendered
wholly valueless :.
The Knoxville Company, ignorant OF
the situation, and with nothing TO put
II on inquiry as TO the transfer OF the
notes dealt with the record as II lound
n. The result Is that the deed 10 secure
The notes held by the Savings Bank was
released so far as the Knoxville Company
is concerned. and being an innocent pur-
chaser relying upon the public record, 1t
e,ands before the court with an equity
eouei 40 that of the Savings Bank, and
v,i,b n legal title vested in the trustee
Cor its benefit. a..
Held. The equities being equal, the
IegoI title must prevail. Williams VS..
Jackson. II Otto, 47s; National Valley
Bank Of Staunton VS.. Hartman, 70 va
Coz. oo n
Credit was extended r. for 500 by ~
on the basis Of this property, VINO TOOK
a deed on the property already uhoer
lien 70 the Old Dominion Loan Associa-
zion. and a second lien TO secure the
- credit
ATTENDED while the lien 10 the savings
rank was in full force and effect by the
record and further credit was refused
until this lien was discharged. AFTER ~
ives marked satisfied" a further creuit
OF S3l was extended.
ueld. q AS to the 1863 y. cannot be
considered an innocent purchaser Iol
value and without notice, and there Is
grave room TO doubt whether he can be
az held as to the 1871 under the clrcuih-
stances of this case; but that is point
a Is not necessary to decide. Inc en-
tering Of satisfied on the record, WINE
Il operated as q release 10 that ehSuhi
brapce, did not inure to put the iesai
title in the trustee In the deco mace iol
T's benefit. because upon this particular
niece OF property the legal title was out
standing in the trustee in the deco 10
secure the Old Dominion Loan Assocla-
ION AS 10 the sl3l. z. was the pur-
chaser Of q mere equity-an equity equai
10 that OF the Roanoke Savings BANK
INT a Junior equity which must be post
,oned 10 the elder. Williams We. Jackson
S,nra. Briscoe vs.. Ashby. "a Graft, 4oi'
Held lastly: The decree OF the lower
court is erroneous In so far as IL post-
pones tho lien of the Knoxville COMPANY
20 the Savings Bank, and 10 mat eAtei,l
As reversed as TO Evans II IL aihrIneo;
as TO NJ. and r., they having perpetra.eu
a fraud on the Savings BANK, are re-
sponsible to 1t for any loss substances;
The csuse ls remanded, with directions
90 decree against them In favor OF tne
savings Bank such sum as may be neces-
sary 10 indemnify 1t against loss by rea-
son OF said fraud.
EVIDENCE. EQUITY PLEADING.
BARLEY. &C. VS.. Byrd, &c. Affirmed.
Opinion by Keith. +.
A bill 10 remove cloud from title 10
a. 900 acres OF land in Bath, Highland,
Rockbridge. and Augusta counties, al
leglng a grant by the Governor OF viz
ginia IN i7e TO Thomas Wilson. IL is
averred that a deed from Thomas VIII
son and wife 10 James Wilson, executed
some time between 1TS5 and 1877, has been
lost, and the object of the bill is to have
q decree setting up this deed and Tor
general relief.
Stated briefly, the case hinges on the
evidence as TO whether the alleged lost
deed was ever executed and delivered.
There is a memorandum dated Marcn
10 1876. conceded to be in the handwriting
o. and signed by Bushrod Washington,
who was the attorney OF James wilson,
IN which is the following statement
I..1r
Wilson. and biz him and wife conveyed
With rnnnraI warranty 10 Iamas Wilson.