Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-26
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN AT
wYTHEyILLE THURSDAY.
MANY INTERESTING POINTS SETTLED.
A Case Involving n Bank Judgment
Usuryt Title of the Act-Lines-
Notice Under Registry-Lease at
Will,

Following are digests of opinions hand
ed down in the Supreme Court OF APP.
peals at Wytheville last Thursday;
Repass VS.. Moore. Reversed in part
Opinion by Keith, z.
The Bank OF Wytheville, having a judg
ment against Moore and others, flee
Its bill to enforce the lien on Moore.
real estate. Account of liens and thell
priorities. September, 1857. and from date
OF this decree, the suit became a credi-
tors bill. Report Of liens by commits
sioner, including ito this sum must also
be added back taxes on Moores land
amounting to s4S1.7O."
There were three exceptions to the re-
port, the second of which was withdrawn.
The first, because the report failed TO
show for what years the back taxes
were due; the third, because the tax
tickets were barred by statute A stipu-
lation between counsel was had TO the
effect that the taxes were for the years
1884. 1885, and 1885, and that they had
never been returned delinquent. This
stipulation was dated January 10, 1899,
and the same day, without other evil
dence or report, all exceptions were over
ruled and a decree entered that Re-
pass was entitled TO be subrogated to the
rights Of the State and county I'm the
matter OF the taxes, and that he recover
the same OF Moore. with interest from
the 18th day OF December, of each year
Till paid. and remanding the cause for
further report.
Moore filed petition. February term.
1870, for review of the decree, which
allowed the back taxes as a lien, alleg-
ing lack OF evidence wherein to base the
decree; that there was nothing to show
amount OF taxes paid by Repass, or that
he was entitled TO the subrogation; but
on the contrary, that the taxes were not
liens, as more than five years had
elapsed since they became liens.
RepasS remurred 10 petition. but Court
allowed a rehearing, and decided that
Repass was not entitled 10 the snbroga-
ton, and set aside the former decree TO
that extent Repass appealed. assigning
was final decree, and more than a year
having elapsed before petition flied, il
was too late, even though petition treat
cd as a bill OF review.
Held: ]. The decree was interlocutory
and not final. decree for sale under a |
mortgage. or otherwise. IS interlocutory
because the sale is not consummated |
tuAh dpHAOktQ bS inc 1OuIl. Bart, 4
Chy. Prac, Sec. 233. Where further ac-
ton Is necessary 70 give completely the |
relicf~ contemplated by the Court, the |
decree upon which the question arises
f. not final, but interlocutory. Cooke
VS.. GIipin, / Rob. 2S; Rawlings VS. Raw
lings. Is Va, &c.
2. There is nothing upon the face OF the
report which DISCLOSED the interest
OF Kepass In the back taxes; nothing
70 show he had paid them or done any
act emitting him 10 be subrogated 10 the
rights OF the State or county. Repass
never appears in the record until the
decree of January, 1885. There was no
error then In setting aside that decree,
but the Court should have directed the
commissioners TO enquire and report on
the claim OF Repass TO the lien asserted
by him. II was not barred. The Com
monweath has a lien for taxes for five
years from the 18th OF December OF the
year for which they are due-in this case,
from December is. lSSL The decree which
converted this suit into lien creditors
suit was entered September, 1881, less
taan slve years after the tax bills be-
came duo. Its effect was 10 suspend the
statute as 20 all lien creditors of de-
PENDANT. Barton's Chy. Prac., Sec &c.
ana cases cited. IL Repass had. fin fact, !
pnia me taxes under circumstances en-
utifx MIN 10 SEGREGATION. II would bel
Sross injustice 10 deny him the oppor-
tunlty TO mako proof Of his claim He
saAas case which satisfied the Court at
~ January term, 1884, and should notl
Lave Deem suinmarily dismissed With
eppofraaity TO mako good his de- !