Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-07-18


statute. as was then applicable. II there
had been change Of facts. a new decis-
ion applicable 10 them would be required,
and the former decision would cease.
Wells on Res Adjudicata. &c, section 5l9.
The record calls FOR a decision between
tho same parties, upon the same evil
donco and the same issues as before.
when it was the unanimous judgment or
this court that the testimony was in
sufficient 10 sustain the judgment. What
else could the Circuit court do in the
face of the reversal 10y this court OF its
former acton than render judgment in
8c.of iaAcs thcreW lthf
SEGREGATION.
Tomhs, etc. VS. Gambler. etc. Reversed.
Opinion by Buchanan. j.
Gambler and others bought land on
when Was a subs.5;lug lien. The lana
IS sold TO satisfy said lien; they became
the purchasers. paid costs Of suit ana
sale iu cash and gave bonds with Sc
curty 90 the commissioner OF sale. Tor
deferred payments. They allege in their
bul uied before the first bond became
due. That the amount of Tie bonds -
equal 20 the sum due by their vendor,
tina ihey were executed IN liquidation
thereof, ana were accepted by the lien
ere ors I'm payment Of their lien or de-
cree, ana they ask 10 be subrOgatcd 10
the rights OF the creditors The recC 1
shows that The amount OF the bonds D.
equal 10 the lien debt. bat here IS no
bonds !n satisfaction Of their debt.
Held: Before a surety can be subrJ-
gated tO the rights Of creditors against
the PRINCIPAL debtor he must have ac-
tually satisfied the debt; not necessarily
in money but If creditor accepts pro-
pcrty, negotiable paper or other SEE
curities from him I'm full satisfaction that
IS generally sufficient to entitle him 10 be
subrogated TO the rights OF the creditors
against the party for whom he mus made
payment. Having failed TO prove that
creditors accepted the bonds i'm payment
and satisfaction. they had no right OF
subrog f',n when suit was brought.
O}raudt on suretvship sections 2fg 20
25l; Sheldon on subrOgation. sectors j2i,
~ Gatewood. etc, VS.. GatewOod, - Va,
40l. TAR vs. Rayenscraft. u Graft. 6l).
RES NON ADJUDICATA.
Tarter W. Wilson. etc. Reversed. Opln-
ion by Buchanan, j.
Pleadings in one cause did not put IN
issue claims set up in another, though
mentioned IN q gen raj way, but not set
up as cross demand or set off; nor
made the basis of n prayer for relief
He'd IL was not necessary for the court
TO pass upon them, and I'm the peadinss
IN the cause IL would have been Improper
10 DO so. Proving a case not made by
nor within The pleadlngs does not au-
thc'lhe court. except by consent TO
!. upon such eXtraneous matters The
decree not referring TO such claims. nor
way hat the court intended TO pass uuon
them, II viii not be presumed that the
court did or attempted 10 do what IL had
no right 10 DO. under tnc pleadings in
tlc cause. In Nidsy vs. Harvey. 9 Graft
4i. claim was made in The answer,
Nnirh had no rJnnection with the relief
sought In IT, OH. and was not neces-
sary 10 be decided in determining the
case made 10y the bill Though the court
oppressed an opinion in favor Of the de-
~ndant i'm it's decree. the decree was
held lot TO conclude the que .'On, when
II was Afterwards set up by the defendant
IN IN a cross o. bill. see see also. Fishburl vs..
ferguson. 70 Va, 32l Mundy vs.. Nawter.
Graft. 49, j2S. IL was therefore. error
10 sustain the defence or res judicata.
EQUITY JURISDICTION. &c.
Hull vs.. YATES Administrator. Amend
ed and affirmed opinion By Harrison
Hull conveyed land to Harrison descg.b-
ed as containing $50 acres, ana received
payment therefor. Harrison then sold
ard conveyed. with a similar description
10 Sayers, and died in 1881 Savers mad
the land surveyed. and the tract was
about 60 acres short. To that extent he
claimed an abatement OF balance or pur-
chase-mOney due by him. Matter sub
mitted TO arbitration, and award OF Sll2
as proper abatement and decree entered
i'm 1855 tmhOdyls terms OF said award.
BIZ in this case was filed 10 July rules,
1889. by Watts, administrator Of Harrison,
FOR a decree against Hull. the first ven
cor, for the deficiency and in 1850 there
was q decree for 500, with interest from
the date Of suit brought
Held: l. Virginia decisions fully srs-
ID equity jurisdiction in cases ike this,
and demurrer was properly oYerruied ms
upon when equity gives reheI
is that of mistake. whether mutual or
the mistake OF one occasioned by the
fraud or culpable negligence or the otheI'
blessing, administrator. vs.. Beatty
Rob 3l6: BOsChen VS.. JurSens, w va
l5s Though the bill does not alese spe-
,ifcally Il mistake, II alleges facts when
show clearly either a mutual mistake or
, fraud each OF which is elementary /
.round for equity jurisdiction. Nheie nv
alleged facts show mistake IL auus ~
hing 10 the force OF the aiiesd'.vn 10 ~
-orth the conclusion flowing Som the
p Though there were a complete ara |
,deouate remedy at law, the existence OF
such remedy cannot depr4Fe Cults LIS or /
,quitv OF jurisdiction Mllhln 'hs s0ope %
heir elementary Jurisdiction. .,... 90
. Tha statute OF limitations begins 10 !
,,n not from the date of the deed. Dnt
rom the time OF the know .eose OF tthe
mistake. Crawford VS.. smith, oSan MI -
,rerred 10 in the contract anu the ian-
mage does not plainly indicate s,,,s a. a.
ross a sale per acre VIII DC pieSNii'ON'
3oschen vs.. Jurgens' supra o,.,,a,,ca nc
There
. - location of lines, an issue out o.
bancery to determine their Location nao,o1 an
Miner or nor there was q dehclehey,
vas proper. and the chancellor as ' ne
light 10 modify the veralTrt q AVA Va 2si.
q interest should have run from me
ate Of the deed from Hull to narFi aoa
ostead of from date Of suit begun. anu
he aecree is amended in this respect u"'
er Rule IN. r,oc
'uikerson, Commissioner, vs.; Ireasu,r,er
-, Eristol Reversed. opinion by Rie-
This case presents the question whether
otes i'm possession OF commissioning
Secuted for the purchase OF property at
court sale are subject 10 tax S,nt the
OF the Revenue list or
leir personal property, Including creoits
,nda section All. and the clerks Oh