Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-26

among the several heirs, and the re.
spective shares OF each subjected to the
payment of just proportion Of the debt
This was eminently just-enabling each
heir TO save from sale, IL possible, the
share received by him by paying his
| ratable proportion OF the debt, if IL
could be done without injury TO the
creditor, or causing him unreasonable de-
lay. He may also often prevent multi
| plicity of suits. Lee Lewis, ct ais, VS..
| Overby's Administrator &C., 81 Graft,
| col.
The rule laid down in the case cited
| applies as well when the creditor has a
lien on the estate as when he has none.
| and there is no authority nor any good
| reason for a distinction between the
cases. See Bell and wife VS.. McCorkev,
&C., So Va, 176.
z. There was no error in postponing
the sale Of the lots on which the Inn
provement Company had specific liens
until the lien thereon to the Fullers was
lifted, or until the proceeds of the sale
Of the lots, when sold, could be applied
towards its discharge, and a title given
relieved Of the Fuller Hen.
3. 1t was asserted by appellants, both
In the Circuit Court and here, that IL the
lands had been sold in a larger body, or
been sold together as one tract, a higher
price would have been obtained. This
view was not accompanied by an upset
bid, nor even supported by affidavits or
otherwise. The Circuit Court would not
have been justified in setting aside the
sales and ordering a resale-taking the
risk OF less price-in the absence of an
upset bid or of a well-founded assurance
of better price, II, indeed. tina difficulty
q
ties between the parties whose lands
might be sold together, arising from the
inequality in the value of the lands and
the right Of contribution was not an in
superable objection to such a course.
Other errors assigned were OF minor |
Importance, were not well founded, and |
need not be discussed.
LINES.
Max Grief VS.. Norfolk and Western Rail-
road Company. Affirmed Opinion by |
Buchanan, j.
The controversy Is over a narrow strip
of land containing less than an acre. Jury
waived, and all matters of law and fact |
submitted to the Court, which gave judg-
ment for defendant and overruled mo-
tion for a new trial. The case must be
heard here as upon a demurrer to the
evidence. Code, Sec. 1884, w. u. Tel. Co.
D
Stearns 50 Va.
The line in controversy was located
more than a hundred years ago; is five
miles long; runs through one of the
toughest and most rugged mountain por-
lions of Wythe county where it is very
difficult, If not impossible, to run accu-
rately line of that length with COM
pass, as the survey relied on by the plain
tiff was run. The distance be-
tween the line as located by plaintiff and
where the land lies is about
thirty feet. They were run upon differ
emit degrees from different beginnings,
and with different kinds of instruments.
On and near the line claimed by defend
ant, were found trees marked as line
trees, the marks upon some Of which, in
the opinion Of some Of the witnesses, cor
responded with those upon the white oak
At the beginning corner, recognized by
he parties as one Of the trees called for
IT that corner. Whether the trees so
marked and found. were, in fact, line
rees, and marked when the original line
vas surveyed, was a question Of fact for
he jury. Blocking the trees was one
means OF proving the fact, but not the
,nly way.
What are the termini or boundaries in
/ grant or deed is question OF law for
he Court. but where these are located
8 a question OF fact for the jury.
The evidence of the defendant as to the
haracter OF the marks on the trees
damned to be line trees was admissible,
md tended strongly TO show the true
Inc. The burden OF pfoving where the
riginal line was located was on the
lantiff, and unless upon the whole evil q
ence the jury or Court were satisfied
hat the line as claimed by the plaintiff
las the true line. and the land in the
mits of the original grant, they were
ound to find for the defendant though .
OF entirely satisfied that the line located | 4
y defendant was right.
Held: Ii is sufficient 10 say that after
careful examination and consideration
I the whole record, we are satisfied
lat the judgment of tho Court, consid-
ed as ON demurrer TO the evidence, Is
ot plainly erroneous. IL must therefore
} affirmed
NOTICE UNDER REGISTRY LAWS.
on-Belt Building and Loan Association
vs.. Groves and ais. Affirmed. Opinion a
by Buchanan. J.
Jones and wife conveyed land IN trust
secure money borrowed Of the Build