The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-26
Gavock ct ais. Affirmed. Opinion by

a
the balance due-s55 OoO-belongs to Law
son appellant. Randall McGavock Dor
rowed from the Fullers. February l. 1888,
500 900. for ten years. and gave deed Oh
trust on his real estate other than the
Savers land. March g. 1890. he conNeyeu
a large part OF the land subject 10 TINS
incumbrance 10 the Improvement 'o"i
pany for $4,000. which assumed payiie".
Of the debt 10 the Fullers which was iot
due TIN February ]. 1885 and not uue
when the DEGREES appealed from were
rendered. ,. ,,,o
His only other debt is the balance que
on the vendors lien. lie leit heiIS' on"
the lands OF which he died selseo VIZ,
In great part, allotted TO them III SUI
brought for that purpose. Inc ch' Iulen
became involved. and speclhc ana bon I.,.'1
liens were acquired on their respective
shares Suits we're brought TO enforce
these and the court having ascertalleu
them and established their priorties' de-
creed sale OF the lands.
Held. The vendors lien was properly
given priority over the liens OF the creol-
Tors of the children. not only on the
savers tract. but also on the other lands
inherited from their father and allotted
90 them I'm partition. The debt OF me
ancestor must be first paid out or MS
estate. and the heirs are only ehtlIleo
TO the residue after payment OF MS debts.
II does not appear that Lawson, the
owner Of the vendors lien, has been
preiudiced by having his debt appor-
toned among the several heirs. and the
regpcctive shares Of each subjected 20
the payment Of n just proportion or the
debt This was Cminently just. enabhns
each heir 10 save from SALE II possible.
tho share received by him by paying
HIS ratable proportion Of the debt II II
could be done without injury TO the
creditor. or causing him unreasonable de-
law II may also often prevent multiple
city Of suits See Lewis et ais. VS.. over
by's Admir-. &c, 81 Graft, Sol. The
rule laid down I'm the case cited applies
as well where the creditor has lien
on the estate as when he has none, and
there IS no authority nor any good rea-
son for a distinction between the cases.
Sec Bell and wife VS.. McCOnkey, &C.
% Va. 176
o. There was no error in postponing
the sale Of the lots on which the I'M
provement COMPANY had specific liens
until the lien thereon 10 the Fullers waS
lifted or until the proceeds Of the sale
of the lots. when sold, could be applied
towards fits discharge and title gwen
relieved of the Fuller lien.
3 It was asserted by appellants. both
In the Circuit Court and here. that II
the lands had been sold in n larger BODY
or IL certain shares or parts OF share
had been sold together as one tract
higher price would have been obtained.
This view was rot accompanied by an
upset bid. nor even supported by am
davits or otherwise. The Circuit Court
would not have been justified in setting
aside the sales and ordering a resale
To-
absence Of an upset bid or Of wei,
founded assurance - a better price II
indeed the difficulty Of preserving or
aecertaining the equities between the
parties whose lands might be sold to-
eethor. arising from the inequality I'm
the value Of the lands and the right ~
contribution was not an insuperabie OBJ
lection to such p course.
Other errors as fgned were ~ minor
importance were not wen founded, and
need not be discussed
LINES.
Max Grief VS.. y. & w Railroad Com
pany. Affirmed. Opinion by Buchanan.
The controversy IS over a narrow strip
Of land containing less than an acre. jury
waived and ali matters Of law and fact
submitted 70 the court which gave
Judgment for defendant. and Overruled
motion for a new trial. The case must
he heard here as upon demurrer TO the
evidence code &C. 2i5i W. u. Tel.
Co. VS.. Powell "a Va. 26S; Hartman VS..
Stearns. 95 Va.
The line I'm controversy was located
more than a hundred years ago, is five
miles long. runs through one Of the
toughest and most rugged mountain Dor
tions Of Wythe county where II is very
difficult If not impossible TO run accu-
rately a line Of that length with com
mass as the survey relied on by the plain
Hff was run. The distance between the
line as located by plaintiff and defendant
whore the land lies IS about thirty ieet
They were run upon different degrees
from different beginning and with dit
ferent kinds OF instrumets. on and near
The lire claimed by defendant were found
trees marked ne line trees, the marks
upon some Of which in the opinion OF
some OF the witnesses. corresponded
with those upon the white oak at the
beginning corner recognized by the par
ties MS one Of the trees called for at that
corner.
Whether the trees so marked md found
were I'm fact line trees. and marked Wheh
tho original line was surveyed. was
question Of fact for the jury. Blocking
the trees was one means OF proving the
fact hut not the only way.
What are the termini or boundaries IN
n Grant or deed IS question OF law Tor
the court. but where these are located
rs n ouestionDf fact for The jury.
The evidence OF the defendant as 70
the character Of the marks on The trees
claimed 10 be line trees was admlsslple'
and tended strongly TO show the true
line The burden Of proving where the
original line was located was on the
plaintiff and unless upon the whole owl
dence the Jury OF court were saflsned
that the line as claimed by the paintlii
was the true line. and the land In the
limits Of the original grant they were
hound 10 find for the defendant though
not entirely satisfied that the line 10
Gated by defendant was right
Held. II Is sufficient to say mat aver
n careful examination and consideration
~ the whole record We are satisfied that
he judgment OF the court cohslueieu a.
ON n demurrer TO the evidence Is not
Mainly ey~oneous. Ii must, therefore,
be affirmed.
NOTICE UNDER REGISTRY LAWS
Iron Belt Il. l.. Association Va. Groves
ond ais Affirmed. Opinion by Buch-
anan, J. .,.,,,.
~ secure money borrowed of the build
INC association. acknowledging the deco
before one of the trustees named IN the
decd upon whose certificate 1t was ad-
mltted 10 record.
subsequently sppellees obtained Judg-
nent against the grantors, and filed their
hin TO subject the land so conveyed
charging. among other things that the
recordation Of the deed Of trust was not
constructive notice to them. because the
acknowledgement OF the grantors before