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

IN octoher 1894. appellees. creditors Of
AZ oled their bill in the Hastings Court
80 c,ounton. for themselves and all other
creditors etc. against appellants, and
NJ and wife. charging that certain debts
socurod I'm the first and second class in
the deed 70 appellants were Voluntary
ana fraudulent. and with intent to him
der. etc. praying that they be pronounc-
ed void and that appellees be declared
TO have a first lien on the moneys which
the fraudulent grantee would receive were
the debts to her Vald' neither appellees
nor their counsel knew OF the pending
suit bv appellants when theirs was in
stituted.
In November. 1894, the Hastings Court.
with fun knowledge of the other pending
suit, and against the protest Of appel
lants. directed its commissioner TO ascer-
tain the status Of the case In the Circuit
Court, whether any OF the debts of the
first and second classes were voluntary or
fraudulent. &c. &c on the same day. but
a few hours later, the Circuit Court. then
holding its first term since appellants
brought their suit. referred the cause to
one Of its commissioners, for an account
liens. &c. Such decree had been ordered
the previous day. but had not been en-
tered on the order book because not then
drawn by counsel.
The Hastings Court. its commissioner
| having reported on the status OF the case
! i'm the Circuit Court. enjoined appellants
| from disposng of'any Of the property. and
| at its next term ovcrruled their excep-
| lions 20 the commissioner report. and
ordered him 20 complete his report.
Held J. Between courts OF concurrent
! jurisdiction. tho court which first SECURES
| cognizance Of the controversy or obtains
possession OF the property In dispute is
! entitled 10 dispose Of il without interfer-
ence or interruption from the coordinate
| court. Having first acquired jurisdiction.
| IL is entitled 10 retain II until the end
! Of the litigation, should decide all ques-
J tions which legltmatoly flow ont Of the
| subject matter of the controversy. and
finally dispose of IT, Wells on Jur OF
Courts, Sec. rs. Haden vs.. Garden, I
| Leigh. 157. Many cases cited.
O. Jurisdiction IS acquired by the Issue
and service Of process and priority of
| jurisdiction, I'm a case Of conflict. Is deter
mined by the date Of service. Bell vs..
| Ohio J.. g. II. Co, I Bliss. 200. and other
cases cited. The Hastings Court, when
notified OF the pending suit In the Circuit
| Court. should have refused 10 proceed In
the case during rs pendency in the prior
suit.
9. Suits technically known as creditors
! suits form an exception TO the general
rule as 20 conflict Of Jurisdiction between
| coordinate courts. Each suit having tho
same common object. and being for the
benefit OF an persons interested, no credi-
| tor is required 10 rely on the diligence
| OF the first who began proceedings. for
until n decree Of reference each COM
| plainant has control Of his own suit, and
may dismiss 3d. After such decree In any
effff nf1 in Dfh no
| I'm that first brought. must be stayed.
| Pied. d Arlington ms. Co. vs. Maury. &c.
! - Va, EOS: Stephenson VS.. Tavcner @
| Graft. 39S Appellees' suit is not such
| creditors suit Its primary object was
| not the administration Of the trust fund
| among creditors generally. but. 20 secure
| a lien upon and divert the payment or
moneys from the others 10 themselves.
| and the decree Of the Hastings Court was
not the usual and general one. but was
| limited 10 the special object of the bin.
Tho appellees had n right 10 come into
| the suit I'm tho Circuit Court. ask 10
| be formally made parties. 10 raise all
| proper issues. and obtain fun relief
T. While they could not be substituted
| In that suit 20 the right Of any creditor
whose debt they proved 10 De fraudulent
| Code Sec. 2i6O. neither could they be
so substituted or acquire such prior lien
| by a separate suit. The effect Of setting
| aside the deed as 20 q particular debt
would be simply to leave the deed as n
| such debt had never been inserted. not
| 20 substitute the debt Of the attacking
| creditor. nor to promote his debt 10 the
| class OF the excluded debt. His Hen
| would date only from the commencement
| ~ the suit: the lien Of the creditors SCI
| cured by the deed dates back 10 IT'S eXecu-
ton irrospective Of the class I'm which
] secured Tho deed remains unimpairod
| as TO the valid debts secured therein. and
/ the attacking creditor cannot acquire
! priority over existing Hens SkiDwith vs..
| Cunningham 6 Leigh 27i: Bnlups VS..
! Sears = Graft. Fl. ana many other cases.
ESTOPPEL
Jordan VS. the Bucna Vista Co. Re
yersed. opinion by Judge buchanan.
The company purchased from jthe exc
| cutors Of S. T. Jordan lands. for cash
! ana bonds, and "a vendors lien was re-
served for the credit payments. After
wards Ina "a suit hy bis executors against
his heirs. they were directed TO collect
the unpaid purchase money, at that time
S5l 600. and pay it over 90 the general Pee
ceiver of Rockbridge Circuit Court. where
the suit was pending. They did not col
lect. but delivered To- the receiver the
notes held by them which were due TO vac
| rIOus legatccs OF s.. II. Jordan. or that
| und appellant and her children were e,i
titled 10 $4,000. and she filed % petition
! that her individual interest Doe determined
and had "a decree fixing e. at $1,000. and
| directing the receiver upon collection of
the notes of the company TO pay hen
$4,000. and hold SN0 To- pay costs
The company. not being IN condition
90 pay. made am arrangement with hei
10 retain tho money ana executed its
bond to her for that sum. in which %
is stated that its payment is secured by
the original vendors lien. and collateral
| security held by the receiver.
! Iu December lslf tlo company filed its
bill TO wind mp its business. and am nc.
count OF liens was directed. The com.
missioner reported that the $1,000 du.
appellant was part of the original price
Of the land. that she did not release th,
vendors lien by taking tho new bond
and that her lien was Of equal dignit,
I with that held hy fhe receiver. EXccp
tions by the receiver wore sustained hy
! tho court. and the debts due him wor,
given priority. Appeal
Held !. independent OF the agreement n
! that effect. WHOM the bond 10 her was
made. she would stll have had vendor.
lien by virtue of tho original contract oil
sale. A vendors lien exists until II q
clearly shown that it has been waived. re-
leased or satisfied. Jamis0n vs.. Riyey
% S. r. r.. Ssh The receiver. admitting
that as between appellant and the com
pany. his lien may bo In fu'l force in
sists that she is cstoppcd from settling
it mp as TO him and those DE represents