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

| ldUut 10 pay MIN lut t'0eS1 "~ 49, "
penalty for the applicant.
Held: The court sus;ains the defend
ant The tax has been due for more
/ than two years and the land forfeited 10
| the Commonwealth by whose favor only
can Il be redeemsi. The object OF the
statute was two-fold: TO induce those in
terested 10 reclaim the land by promptly
paying the taxes. and to encourage 9TH
ers 10 buy the same from the State for
| the taxoa due thereon. After applica-
| lion TO buy has been filed another oppor-
| tunity Is given TO the parties to redeem,
upon conditions. however. that the In
| cidental costs, and the IS penalty TO the
applicant be paid: doubtless intended as
reimbursement 10 him for Offering to
purchase at the invitation OF the State.
The construction contendcd for by pc
| tItioners would defeat the object Of the
law
NO JURISDICTION.
White. &c, VS.. Valley Building and In
vestment Company. Appeal dismissed.
Opinion by Harrison, j.
There were two liens on a parcel o.
land-the first for 81 ,O00-the owner OF the
land-a corporation. The property was adj
vcrtised for sale 10 pay this lien, when
number Of stockholders in the corpora
ton, the appellants, advanced the cor
poratiOn 500 each to pay off the lien, and
It was paid and released Then the next
lien holders sought to sell for his debt,
when these stockholders filed q petition
setting out their payments, and claim 10
be subrogated to the first lien, and TO
have the same enforced 10 the extent
of the several amounts advanced By
them.
Held: Each OF the appellants made
separate loan to the company. There
was no community of interest among
indefinite
and the right TO enforce It without re-
gard to any other. Though they filed
their petition as co-petitioners, it was
merely as a matter of convenience and
in no way affected or changed the dis
tinct character of their several demands.
The claim of each being for sum less
than 500 this court is without jurisdic-
ton. Umbarger VS.. Watts, 70 Graft, l6i.
LACHES.
Baylor & Carr VS.. Fulkerson's execu-
tors. Affirmed. Opinion by Harrison, j.
Fulkerson qualified as guardian Of his
three children, who inherited trom their
maternal grandfather in 1863, their mother
having died shortly before him. They
also inherited from a maternal uncle,
who died in 1866, whose administrators
were successfully Ruger, Hopkins and
Fulkerson, none Of whom ever made
settlement before a commissioner.
In 1880 mis- youngest daughter married
Carr. and in 1852 his other daughter
married Baylor.
In 1884. Fulkerson and his wa, ds. their
husbands uniting, entered into sealed
contract setting forth the several capsci-
ties, in which Fulkerson was liable, viz:
as guardian, as administrator of their
uncle and as surety for Hopkins, for
mer administrator; that as guardian and
administrator he had received various
sums Of money notes, bonds. etc, which
had been partially dlsbursed for his
wards. but Of which no accurate account
had been taken and no settlement made
before a commissioner; and to settle ful-
ly and finally all these matters Of account
ana liability he would pay to each ward
500.
In consideration Of these sums. receipt
acknowledged the wards agree fully and
finally TO acquit, release and discharge
Fulkerson. Fulkerson died in 1896, and
in April Of that year suit was brought by
his daughters. charging fraud and con-
cealment. in the contract of 1854 ana
that 81 was made 10 hinder and estop
them from enforcing the sacred trust for
their benefit voluntarily assumed by him
and asking that the same be annulled
and set aside as to them, that Fulkerson's
accounts as guardian and administrator
be settled, ana his executors be required
to pay to them from his estate the
amounts shown to be due them. The eX-
ecutors demur to and answer the bill
denying the charges, insisting that the
contract represented a full and fair set
tlement for all that was due them, and
relying further upon the statute OF lin
itations and laches.
Held While settlements with wards
soon after they became Of age and es-
| pecially before coming into their estate
are jealousy scrutinzed by courts Of
equity. the law does not prohibit the
guardian from dealing with his lately
emancpated wards and a release Of or
q gift TO him may stand If shown 10
have been made deliberately. and with
sufficient opportunity for consultation
and advice. Long and unexplained ac-
guiescence IS in this. as in other like
cases. an effectual bar 2. Leady cases in
Equity, pit 2, p. 12l2-13. Minors Insts. p.
1872
When this contract was made the son
was twenty-sevcn. and the two daughters
respectively, twenty-five and twenty-three
years old and both married, living at
their own homes under the influence and
protection OF their husbands, who were
men of intelligence and business capac-
There was ample time for consultation
and advice, ana the contract was exc
cuted deliberately and voluntarily. The
contract was ample roticc, II any were
needed, Of the characters in which the
father was TO settle. ana gave a full ac-
count OF the property, and the infOrma-
ton that no accounts had been kept nor
settlements made. no misrepresentation
nor cOncealment Of any material fact is
shown. it further appears that Baylor
soon after the contract, was inVesugat-
ing these matters. and advising with
counsel in regard to 1t, and I'm May 1856
he got letter from the county clerk
giving him detailed account OF the mat
ters and items Of charge against Fu'ker-
son now set up in the bill and alleged TO
have been discovered since 1896 The SIS
ters nevertheless remain silent for twelve
years. acquiescing in the contract until
their brother Is dead and all other per-
sons connected with the transaction, they
now seek to investigate, and ninety days
after their fathers death they bring this
suit.
Held. Such laches under such circum-
stances leave applicants no ground TO
stand upon IN n court of conscience, and
their bill was properly dismissed.
While this decision rests upon the doc
trine of laches. it is proper 20 add that
the commissioner careful report shows
that appellants had been overpaid by
their father in the settlement of 1884
PROPER PARTIES, PRIORITIES.
Carnahan VS.. AshWorth, &c. Reversed.