The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-19

iolncd al the last term. His motion was
overruled. the clerk tesufying that there
WAS no other case on the common law
docket i'm which Lewis was plalntiH ana
Hicks defendant, and that he had omitted
the words, administrator &c.' lhadVeIl-
entity
subsequently he moved the court 70 DE-
rect "a Judgment 10 be entered up al
rulcs. which was ovcrrulod and then
asked leave TO Withdraw his j0inder on
tho pIaa of the salute, also denied, ana
thereupOn Jury found for defendant on
the issue. Motion 90 set aside, ana for
Judgment notwithstanding oFerIuicd
and exceptions.
Held. Where a verified account filed
with declaration. and copy served win
writ an office Judgment follows unless
during term plea in bar also yefiiied.
is filed. which Judgment becomes Hhdl
nj expiration OF term. Here was plea
entered informally. the clerk falling 20
mt 80 I'm proper FORM objection in sine
would have made 30 tho duty OF the
roi-rt % reject 30. or require 10 I'm Wrllng'
i'm proper form and verified. The plaln-
ill., however merely took issue on the
plea. nis purpose. as he afterwards ayers
was mieapprchended hy the clerk. he in-
tending 10 demur Tho demurrer The &C.
ruurrcr would rot have brought the plea
TO the attention of the court any more
than dil thr reioiudcr. and required IT'S
rejection for lack of am aiiiddVlI me
aeldavit IS 10 more % part of the plea
;han Tho account is Of tho declaration.
The affidavit required with the plea
is manifcstly for plaintiffs benefit. and
may be waived by him either ezpressly
or bv implication. and his conduct may
cstoD him from taking advantage OF it,
When hc took issue Of fact or law upon
tho plea. however irfcral the plea was
rightly considered. os hlcd. thc Office
Judgment set aside. AND the case proper
Dr. ON thc issue docket
Tho plaintiff i1 prccludod lev his cone
duct from availing himself OF such ir-
reeuarIues in practice as are disclosed
in the record.
no FRAUD.
Merchants Bank Of DauyillA vs. Bolt.
&C. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Keith
president.
Bolt was indebted 90 another Danvine
bank A40o and gave lien on his pro-
perty with the understanding II should
NOT Doe recorded unless the debt appeared
endangered. This bank finally declined a
renewal Of tho note and determined 10
record the decd. Negotiations led Co the
surrender OF the unrccordei deed ana am
absolute decd by which Belts property
was sold HUl conveyed I'D t..H hNllh iil
settlement Of the note and certain rents
duo and TO become due upon his store
house The plaintiff here assaulted this
arrauecment-that making loan and
accepting q security not recorded Bet
was enabled To- cui0y false credit
Held. There IS no evidence that tho lat
Ger hank knew OF Belts indebtedness to
plaintiff. nor that &c was actuated by any
motive 20 hinder or delay appellant or
any OF Belts creditors. even though II
had known Of 10. and had made the loan
with such knowledge 10 would have been
insufficient 20 establish fraud without
other circumstances showing the arrange
ment had been entered into with fraud
ulent purpose 10 hinder and delAy credi-
tors.
Nor does The evidence warrant tho
charge that the deed was voluntary or
upon inadequate consideration. There Is
evidence 10 show that the bank realized
from the assets purchased by IL some
thing more than it paid. but there Is no
such disparity as 10 excite the slightest
suspicion of fraud.
Though fraud on Belts part were
shown-as 81 IS not-thGt would be wholly
| insufficient 10 sustain appellants case.
lie must show fraud not only by Belt,
' but that IL was known 20 and paruci-