The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-11-18


Ferguson the property described in the
deed OF trust Of April ;. 1898.
Held. The real estate Of Payne & Co.
20 be first sold. so much as necessary TO
pay tho Underwood Judgment ana costs
Of suit including prior liens. II pro-
cceds insufficient TO satisfy Underwoods
judgment and prior Hens then certain
lands OF Ferguson TO satisfy balance due
Underwood.
Dunbar q Sapos's judgment also 10 be
pato out Of the property remaining in
the hands OF the judgment debtor, II suf-
hcient; otherwise by Rorer q Didior and
not by Ferguson
Had RCrer and Di1ier. surct.cs in the
forthcoming bond. paid the judgment
they would be subrogited 10 the rights
OF Underwood and 20 the lien Of his
judgment against Payne & Co; 1.-THE
surety OF a joint debtor in a forthcoming
bond becomes upon forfeiture surety for
the debt. ana when he has DISCHARGED 1t
Is substituted 10 all the rights OF The
creditor against the original debtors sub
sisting at the time he became so bound.
Robinson VS. Sherman . Graft. 40. i'm
VS.. Mauser, II Graft. 525. see also 80 va.
go
@ Merger II does not matter whether
debts secured I'm tho trust deed % Hart
az the time Of its execution. or whether
he acquired them subsequently, There
Is no question as 10 the bona fidcs. He
bought the property subject TO the Hart
lien. and is entitled 10 hold that lien
for his protection. Where the legal own
crship Of the land and the absolute own
crshiD Of the encumbr0uce become vested
I'm the same person. the intention gov
q ft.fg fFr hoo
been expressed. f. controls: if not OK
pressed. tho intention will be presumed
from what appears 10 be The best in
terest Of the party as shown by all the
circumstances. POmeroy. sec. 19l. Shell
don on Subrog. sec -.
The purchase by Ferguson. June 81.
and the conveyance 10 him by Hart.
trustee. OF the trust property In Novom-
Der following did not merge eXtinguish
or impair the lien created by the trust
deed IN Hart Of April 9Th. but I'm equity
r. will be kept alive and in force for the
protection OF his title.
ASSESSMENT. WAIVER.
Monger VS.. Rockingham II. NJ. ms Co.
Reversed. Opinion by Keith. =.
Mrs showalter. mother OF Mrs. Mon
pdr was devisee for life Of certain
realty. with remainder 10 Mrs. Moneer.
After Mrs. SIS death. her husband re-
NAMED in possession and control Of the
property During the mothers life time
the buildings were insured by tho ms.
Co. and under its laws the insured pro-
perty IS subject to revaluaton at inter
walls Of FIVE years.
Certain provisions Of the charter are 10
the effect:
/. All PERSONS subscribing thereto. thei
executors. adminisirato~s ana assigns.
ana vendees continuing to be Insured
Herewith thereby become members whilo
they remain insured. or until they with
draw in accordance with its regula-
ticns.
>. If a member die his willow or other
legal representative holds his relation 10
the company unless notice Of withdrawal;
IN proper notice the property may be
withdrawn If no charges against II; upon
notice that an heir or transfcree wished
10 continue insured. the company en-
dorsed the certificate of insurance trans
ferred" naming the beneficiary.
After Mrs SIS death the property stood
insured In the name of her husband and
assessments were made out against and
paid by him. August o. 1894 the control
OF the property was turned over 10 Mrs.
NJ who had title thereto after her
mothers death under her grandfathcr's
will. and a certificate was issued 10 her.
embracing all the property Heretofore
insured and other items which increased
the amount of insurance several hundred
dollars
Prior to August 23d. assessments had
been made against ShOwalter for two
losses. amounting TO S1.53 which sum
was demanded of him i'm q notice October
e. %. and again March s. %. I'm May.
1895. at a meeting Of the company a list
OF delnQuents was read and on II was
= . hoe. frrs|t
assessments. whereupon her husband.
then present. stated he would pay them
Mrs. NJ. while not I'm the meeting. was
near bv and was informed that the CO.
held her responsible for these assess
menfs. and il was after this that notice
OF the assessment of June 70, 1875. was
sent her. which embraced those assess
ments and a subsequent one OF Sl5'' as-
gregating 1924 of past due assessments
II is conceded that Mrs NJ. has paid all
assessments made against her since Aug
o. 1894
In June. 1894. her barn was burned. and
the company defended on the ground
that she was delinquent in the payment
of the assessments aggregating $lo'. she
cOntended before the jury Cd That she
had paid all assessments; % that the
controverted assessments were not due
bv her: CD waiver OF forfeiture by the
company.
Held. l. Mrs. Mongor's liability for as
eessrronts was purely personal. ana they
constituted no Clarec or lien on the pro-
ncrty insured She does not stand on
the certificate originally issued to Sho-
walter her father but on her own right
as shown by a certificate OF membership
IN her not as transferee but as an origl-
mol member. She was not liable 10 the
company for the 81 50 assessments
.. Waiver. The conclusion first stated
Is conclusive OF the case. but there is
evidence tending strongly 10 show
waiver by the company Of IT'S right TO
forfeiture because OF the nOn-D1vmont
nv Mrs. " Of the Si.55 assessments. as
enming that she was liable for them.
These losses occurred prior 20 Aug. "a.
when n certificate was issued in her
name. recognizing her as a member and
insuring her property A. intervals after
mat time until her loss assessments were
made against her which She paid and
,hc company received These facts are
evidence tending 10 show the waiver re-
uod on which should have gone TO the
turv with proper instructions
An unconditional acceptance OF an as
sessment valves all former known
grounds of forfeiture. Rice VS.. y. =.
Ala Soc. u y. f. Rep. 62i: Roswell VS..
Fnujt. Aid Union. Is Fed. Rep. $40.
sURVIVORSHIP.
SNYDER. &c. VS. Grandstaff, &c. AZ
0rmed Opinion by Cardwell. j.
ID will a gr