The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-10

| murrer, but directed the persons to be
made parties whose absence constituted
| the only ground upon which the demur-
! rer could have been sustained. Had II
been sustained, there would have been
an order TO make the proper parties, and
! in the case Of formal parties It is not
usual to remand 70 rules for that pur-
1 pose.
3. The decree must be reversed for an
J other error Land cannot be sold under
I a decree until the liens binding It, their
| amounts. and the order OF their priOri-
! ties have been established (Keswick vs..
J Whitney. Supra), the object being to OBJ
tain the best price for the property. To
accomplish this those holding liens must
be advised beforehand as TO the amount
OF their liens. and the order in which
they stand. Herein the commissioner
report was defective, and while not ex-
| cepted to for this cause, the defect IS
apparent upon its face. and In such case
| objection may BE taken In this court.
| Bart CHI, Pr, Sec Gas.
| 4. The Wytheville Building and Loan
| Association, having appeared before the
| commissioner and proved us deDt ana
| cause in a position to appeal from an
] adverse decree and to take The benefit of
| a favorable decision, cannot De permitted
! to escape the consequences, ana must De
| adjudged liable for the costs OF THIS ap-
| peal moo,
| Anderson, &c, VS.. The erosion Lana
| Company. Affirmed. Opinion by Keith, \.
| Thc appellants, John and George An
derson, were IN Salem in loyO-Doom time
| the guests Of their uncles, q; =. ana
| u. II. Lyon. They purchased lols-tW9
| from the Creston Land Company, OF
which their uncle was president ana con-
| templatcd purchasing third from Hlrkie
| II the title proved satisfactory leaving
1 L 100 a. ar.N. q IA
| IL the title was good. This purchase was
| not cOnsummated. and the LlgOns, IN
| stead Of returning the money, TOOK II
upon themselves 10 invest IT, Iney
| sociatlons called themselves, and pur-
chased ten lots from the Creston Com
| pany for $3.50 One-third cash, balance
| in one and two years, the Andersohs each
TO have an undivided One-nlth interest,",
| and tho lots 10 be free from incum-
| brance. They knew nothing OF 1t at the
| time, but in about two months were n
| formed by letter from their uncle OF the
| investment. and that there was lacking
| $500 to pay the amount due. After con-
| sulting together they agreed that thelr
| uncle mad no right so 10 use their money
| but John Anderson deposes, as mo uh-
| Gle stated they had made big bargain
and would never have any more money 10
| pay" a check was sent for the amount
Certain assurances were made Wheh they
! bought the TWO lots Of graded streets
| etc. and deed free from ali encum-
| brances. When payments fell due ap-
pellants objected because these assuf-
| anCes had not been fulfilled, and IL was
! ascertained that the tile was encum-
| bered; but upon the encubrances being
| removed, ana a sufficient deed rendered,
| they paid the balance due on those lots
| and obtained title. They now claim they
| had a right to rely upon the same assur-
ances given with the two lots, and this
| may be conceded, and there is strong IN
| ference that the terms of the sales were
| identical. IL Is admitted that the Lyons
| had been given no authority TO make the
| investment. and on notice or II the An
! dersons were at liberty TO ratify or re-
| pudiate the assumed agency.
| Held: Their act in sending the check
WAS a ratification or inc uhaulhoIlleu
act.
they contend that It was done in igno-
rance OF material facts, but admit the
| receipt OF a letter from Logon o. Bro, a
month or so after leaving Salem, inform
| ing them Of the investment OF tho money
| left with them. in lots purchased Tor q
! speculation; that said lots we're represent
ed as free Of incumbrance, or perfect
title TO be supplied with pure spring
water etc; but they deny that they
| knew that others were associated win
| them, or that they knew anything or the
notes or deed Of trust mentioned IN the
Held: It is not claimed that they are
| liable jointly with others for any portion
| of the purchase money. II Is only souBht
| TO recover Of them their pr0poruOhate
| share: and they were duly advised, when
they forwarded the check, Of the extent
| of their interest in the subject matter.
| . The assurances as 10 grazing s,Ieetsi
| etc, were matters OF opinion, not or ldtlr
and the cases recently decided by this
| court leave nothing more To- DE said on
that subject Wilson VS.. Carpenter, 'l
| Va. 1S3; Watkins VS. W. Nytheyiue Ian4
| Co., 81 va, l. GrOsh vs.. lvanhoe Lana
| CO.. y S. r.. r.; Max Meadows Land and
Imp. Co. VS.. Brady. ~ Va, az wilson,
Trustee. vs.. Hundley. decided at this
The question involved as to one Of the
| Ligons being president Of the company
and Lyon & Bro VINO were IneiEDeIs 9l
who effected the sale. and. therefore,
occupied improper and incompatible rela-
tions rendering the transaction Irauul-
lent, was not raised In the pieadlnss' anu
therefore, cannot be made ground Tor re-
lief
Matney vs.. Ratlibb's Administrators.
Affirmed. Opinion by Buchanan, j.
A grant by the Commonwealth was Is
sued 10 Johnson more than a hundred
years ago The land has never been
placed upon the books Of the Commits
sloner Of the Revenue for taxation, and
no taxes have ever been paid on 1t BY
| Johnson or those claiming under him.
Held. Johns0ns title has been forfeit
| cd TO the Commonwealth. stats vs..
Board. 10 Graft 400; Wild's Lessee vs..
Serpel, Id. 40J; Hale VS.. Brausculn, I'd.
ilS The fact that there is nothing OF
record 10 establish such forfeiture does
not make IL the less complete IL be-
comes absolute and complete by the fall
ure to enter the lands upon the Commits
sioners books and to pay The taxes, as
prescribed by Act OF Feb. u, lSj; and
no matter OF record IS necessary 10 con-
summate and perfect the forfeiture.
Same cases.
?. Where upon given state OF facts
the law is settled that a title IS absolute
~ forfeited 10 the Commonwealth, when
those facts are shown TO exist there is
no cloud upon the title OF q subsequent
grantee Of the Commonwealth OF the
same land. There being no cloud upon
the title, there is no error in the decree
for specific execution Of the contract
requiring appellant to accept the title.
8. In his belief but not in his petition
for appeal, appellant assigns as error the
/ over-ruling OF his demurrer. There is no.
thing in the record TO show demurrer
was filed. the only reference to one be-
ing a statement in his answer that he re-
serves AL just exceptions to the many
defenses by demurrer TO a BILL &c" I'M
der the most liberal construction OF
pleadinPs that statement I'm an answer
could not be regarded as fling a demur-
req.
II Is also assigned as error that the
personal representatives who brought
suit for sDpcffc execution did not show