Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-11-19

claims the farm itself. 1t would be the
merest conjecture TO say which commis-
sioner Is right In his conclusions. The
evidence as to the value Of the Improve
ments Is as conflicting as 1t could wen DC,
yet one commissioner values them at
more than twice as much as the other.
while they agree as to the annual rental
value OF the farm. In view of the circum-
stances surrounding thu parties and the
unsatisfactory and conflicting character
Of the evidence. the court below should
simply have dismissed the cross-bill Of
the son. without attempting to adjust
the accounts, thus leaving the parties
where they had, by their manner Of deal
ing, placed themselves.
CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.
| Craig and Bumgardner. Trustees. vs..
Hoge & Hutchinson. Reversed. Opin-
| Ion by Rely, ].
A conveyance by NJ. to appellants Of
| all his real and personal property In
| trust to secure four classes OF creditors.
| with existing liens. vendcrs and DEEDS
| Of trust, on parts OF the realty. May b.
| 1894 appellants filed their bill In the Cir-
| cult Court of Augusta for ascertainment
| OF liens and their priorities. and this court
| acquired jurisdiction Of the parties and
| the trust subjeet-the matter OF the con-
| troversy. In June, 1894, p, trustee In TWO
! of the prior deeds, advertised the realty
| conveyed to him, and appellants enJoined
| the sale. This was the situation when,
| in October, 1894. appellees, creditors OF
| NJ, fled their bill In the Hastings Court
| of Staunton for themselves and all
| other creditors, &C.. against appellants
and NJ. and wife, charging that certain
| debts secured in the first and second
| class in the deed to appellants were
| voluntary and fraudulent, and with In
| tent to hinder, &C., praying that they be
| pronounced void, and that appellees be
| declared to have first lien on the moneys
| which the fraudulent grantee would re-
| ceive were the debts to her valid. Neither
| appellees nor their counsel knew OF the
| pending suit by appellants when theirs
| was instituted.
| In November, 1894, the Hastings Court,
| with full 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 few hours later, the Circuit Court,
| then holding its first term since appel
| lants 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 bad
| not been entered on the order-book De-
cause not then drawn by counsel.
The Hastings Court, its commissioner
| having reported on the status Of the case
| in the Circuit Court, enJoined appellants
| from disposing of any OF the property,
and at it's next term overruled their ex-
| ceptions to the commissioners report and
| ordered him to complete his report.
Held. i. Between courts of concurrent
| Jurisdiction the court which first acquires
| cognizance of the controversy or OBTAINS
| possession of the property in dispute Is
| entitled to dispose of it without inter-
| ference or interruption from the co ordi-
| nate court. Having first acquired juris.
| diction 1t Is entitled to retain 1t until the
| end of the litigation, should decide all
questions which legitimately flow out OF
| the subject matter Of the controversy
| and finally dispose OF 1t. Wells on Jur.
| Of Courts section 1876; Haden VS.. Garden,
| Leigh, 157. Many cases cited.
| 2 Jurisdiction is acquired by the issue
and service OF process, and priority or
| Jurisdiction I'm case OF conflict Is de-
| terrnined by the date OF service. Bell
VS. Ohio L. & T. Company, l Bliss. 26o;
and other cases cited. The Hastings
| Court when notified of the pending suit
| In the Circuit Court, should have refused
! TO proceed in the case during its pen
| dency in the prior suit
9. Suits technically known as credi-
tors suits form an exception to the
| general rule as to conflict Of jurisdiction
| between coordinate courts. Each suit
having the same common object, and
being for the benefit OF all persons in
| terested, no creditor Is required to rely
| on the diligence of the first who began
proceedings for until a decree Of refer
ence, each complainant has control OF
| his own suit and may dismiss 1t. AT
! ter such decree in any suit, all proceed
| ings in the others even in that nrst
| brought must be stayed. Piedmont and
Arlington Insurance Company VS.. Maury,
| etc, 10 Virginia. 5O8; Stephenson vs.
| Tayener, 0 Graft, 39S Appellees' suit
| Is not such a creditors suit. It's pri-
| mary object was not the administration
! of the trust fund among creditors gene
rally, but to secure a lien upon and d.
vert the payment Of moneys from the
others TO themselves; and the decree OF
| the Hustings Court was not the usual
and general one, but was limited TO the
| special object of the bill. The appellees
| had a right to come into the suit In the
| Circuit Court, ask to be formally made
| parties, to raise all PROPER issues and
| obtain full relief.
4. While they could not be substi-
tuted in that suit TO the right OF any
| creditor whose debt they proved
| TO be fraudulent Code section 246O),
neither could they be SO substituted or
| acquire such prior lien by the separate
| suit. The effect OF setting aside the
| deed as to particular debt would
| be simply TO leave the deco as
| IL such debt had never been in
| serted; not to substitute the debt OF the
| attacking creditor nor to promote his
| debt 10 the class OF the excluded debt.
His lien would date only from the com
| mencement of the suit; the lien or the
| creditors secured by the deed dates
| hack 10 its execution, irrespective OF the
class in which secured. The deed re-
mains unimpaired as 10 the valid debts
secured therein, and the attacking eredi-
| tor cannot acquire priority over existing
liens. Skpwith VS.. Cunningham, Leigh.
III: Billups VS.. Sears, Graft, 81, and
many other cases.
| TRESPASS ENJOINED; STATE
| BOUNDARY.
Miller VS.. wills. &c. Reversed. opinion
| by Rely. j.
| Held A court OF equity will not, as
| qaneral rule entoin mere naked tres
mass. But where the acts done or
| threatened would be destructive or the
| substance of the estate, or are often re-
peated or the injury would be irrepara-
| BILE. or whenever the remedy at law is
| inadequate. an injunction Is proper
| Also, in a case where the trespasser is
nac,,niariIv irresponsible The non-resi-
1 dence ~ the trespasser as In this case.
| ie entitled to much weight In deter
mining the propriety of granting an In
| junction. for il would be unjust to turn
| on a citizen subjected to aggravated
| treenasses. and leave him to seek re-