The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-11
A merltor,ons defence. Freeman on judy

a merl,orions defence. Freeman on judg-
ments. sec. 40.
Another line holds that equity carnot
grant relief unless the false return was
procured or induced by plaintin or ne
can be connected with the deception, anu
this il perhaps the better doctrine. Inc
risl of opcnine "a Judgment or decree on
an allegation which. like that OF the faii-
urc TO serve process. or the want or no
lice depends upon the uncertain testimony
of witnesses Is so great that the injured
pari, should bo left 10 his remedy I'm the
same case where relief can be had Ia that
case. or TO his remedy against the oinc'r
who has made the false return. unless
that return was procured or INDUCED py
The plaintiff or ne is in some way re-
spon,dbIc for the defendants, want OF no
lice of the suit or Of the proceeuihBS
therein.
srch Judgment Is sustained not po-
cause a Judgment .cllared without n'u'e
=, c,oa I'm, because the law Will not
n,rmit any proof 60 weigh against tha'
Which thc policy of The Law treats as ap-
e.lnto verify. and RENTS the party ~
t,rcd TO his remedy at law and against
Tho pcrson by whom tie record was
faisincd
Tba ,rcsumption .hpt the powers com
nittcS 10 judicial tribunals have been
nrorcrlv exercised h. essential 10 the re-
nose and safety of society. and TIE IN
convenience OF allowing it TO Ice met ana
ovorcome by paral evidence Is greater
than. any benefit that couli be derlN'"
from n different source. Puzzle s'i,N
demards that when such trlpuhal mas
nronounced Judgment its adjudication on
that subject should bc as conclusive on
tbo question whether the defendant was
N a
tian 10 the determination Of the cause
Smiths Leading Cases. lll9. li2L O.
Goolsbv VS.. St John. p Graf. li6. I"'
walker vs.. Robbins. II Howard. 5'i'
Knox county VS. Harshman, 1SS L. ,.
l52. -,
Ia tho case at bar the allegation OF
the bill that plaintiff did not have actual
notice Of the suit and proceedings unul
after the DEGREES complained OF had peeh
rendered Is wholly unsustained by proof
2Tbc trial court did not exceed It's
Jurisdiction in rendering q personal ue-
cree against complainant. but only COM
mitted an error for which relief could be
had under code. sec. 3ijl.
VENDORS LIEN ASSIGNED.
Rem. &c. vs.. Hcaron. Reversed. Opin-
ion by Judge Cardwen
The sole question is. Can an assignor
Of chose i'm action secured by Neiluoi >
lien reserved on real estate enforce the
lien in equity for the benht OF his as
signc?
Held: An assignee Of a vendor lien
is an assignee of mere chose in action.
and the assignee carries no interest IN the
land on which the debt is secured. Cor
don. assignee vs. Rixey. IS Va 6A.
The assign0r has merely barren legal
title. while the beneficial interest is in
his assignee. who must be "a party TO the
suit. II the real parties in interest are
not before the court no proper decree
can be made. CastleInan vs.. Berry. &c.
Sc Va. COZ. Campbell ". Shipman. - Va.
655. Grove vs.. Judge. = West va. Z.4'
Killam VS. Sawyer 30 Ibid Is. See also
Kane VS. Mann. Va. Law Register. 45i.
and note by editor: the complainant
must be the party owning the beneficial
equitable interest and ne cannot sue Tor
his benefit i'm the name of another who
has a mere barren legal title.
W. W SCOTT.