The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-10
OPINIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
Several Important Cases Decided at
WytheviIe Last Thursday.
THE DELINQUENT LAND TAX,
The Court Approves of the obJec' Oh
the Law and Declares That the Fee
is Just-Digests OF the Other
Opinions.

Following are digests Of opinions hand
cd down BY the supreme Court OF APP
peals at WythcVllle last Thursday
Francis vs. Cline, &c. Retersed. Opin-
Ion by Cardweil J.
Mary Francis acquired 5000 under the
will Of her second husband Whlch was
invested i'm land, conveyed to her third
husband in trust for her sole ana sepd-
rate use They afterwards sePaIateu'
and after much manipulation ana many
deeds that were never recorded, n deco
WAS finally completely executed ana re-
corded by Francis. his wife uniting, con-
viewing the land from Francis. IN ms own
right and as trustee for his wlfe' 10 Cilhe'
tha Udfe's son by former marriage.
This lard vas afterwards eNcnanseu ior
other land. also conveyed TO Chne. Inc
evidence tends to prove that Cline exc
cuted his note for 5000 20 his mother
10 be discharged al any time 10y recohVey-
inc the land 10 her, or selling II, ana re-
Investing the proceeds in other land TOT
her This IS the conclusion sreach' though
there is much evidence in direct connect
herewith (Which Is discredited by the
court. in view OF the circumstances Oh
the several transactions.
Held l. Notwithstanding the second
tract was conveyed TO Cline, appellant
was the real and beneficial owner. lie
undertook a. her agent first 10 ger
conveyance OF the other tract from her
husband and trustee. and then 10 e1-
change that for the second tract IN
both instances ne took conveyance OF
the legal title to himself, and these iacts
being shown. establish trust in nm
for the use OF the appellant. 1t matters
not Whel her "A resulting, or an Implied
trust: both are founded on the presumed
intention OF the parties as both arise by
operation Of law upon the transactions
OF the parties. and the authorizes gen
orally, concur that both may be estab-
ushed by parol evidence Borst VS.. Male
O. ~ Graft. 49,: Bank u. S. VS.. Car
rington. T Leigh, 5G6: Phelps vs. Seely, Y
Graft s73. l. Perry on Trusts Sec. Ia.
Another feature Of this case After the
avchaneo of lands Cline took possession.
His mother requested him 10 convey the
land 10 her and gave him written notice
10 deliver possession to her. lie refused
"a 10 either. and thereUpon she hled her
hiu pravinE that Cline be required 10
eo,,e,, the Io.nd 10 her. She afterwards
stoned and acknowledged before justice,
a paper setting forth the pendency OF
her slit. that full satisfaction had peen
made 10 her: that therefore she released
All right. &c In the land; that naa
fuu considera ton for making the re.tase'
and agreed 10 have her suit dismissed. Al
the next turn the case was dropped from
docket.
been entered as a matter or course. Il
was not assentGd TO by complainant or
bor counsel nor was the presence OF
either noted so far as the record as
closes In subsequent litigation by anoth-
or Marty Mrs FRANCIS comes In by cross
hill and sets out IN effect that the paper
signed and ackr owledged by her was oo-
tanned by fraud. that me contents OF the
naner were misrepresented 10 her; that
d M fIf N
q, contained. and praying that the trans
action he declared null and void. that she
he RENTED t. her rights. and that CINE
he compelled TO convey the land 10 her.
II is insisted by appellee counsel thal
the decree discussing the suit upon the
exhibition Of the paper signed and ac-
knowledged by Mrs. Francis was Dlnd-
inc ON her as a confirmation OF wnat
had gone before but. as said by keith
y IA n a w X. Il. Co. vs. Mills q
Fairfax. q1 Va, Gal: ''there is no instru-
nent so solemn, no judgment or decree 50
binding but that if fraud in its procure
rrent he alleged and proved, il ceases to
protect the wronF-doer or TO obstruct the
Injured I'm the assertion Of their rights.
Held. when a person assents that hdu-
ciarv relations DE established between
him and another the law imposes the
dutv OF so dealing with the trust subject
that his conduct and TRANSACTIONS VIII
stand the test of the closest scrutiny. II
a narfv's right 10 impeaCh q transaction
10 concealed from him or a free disclOs-
urc no not made 10 him OF every circum-
stance which Ct IS material 10 him 10
lfnoV, or n tho act be under pressure or
ro,straint or the exercise Of undue IN
fuence. or under the deusion that me
original transaction is binding on MN,
or N 10 be merely a continuation OF lhe
original transaction, the confirmation
operates ass nothing. If the undue lnilu-
ence stiu remains or is simply con-
finuation ~ he has not fun knowledge
Of an the material facts and OF his own
rights no act of confirmation, however
formal Is effectual. Ferguson vs. Gooch,
% 6 e r. S97: Cumberland Coal Com
nan, vs sherman 20 Nd H. Michaud
rs. Girod How, $685. Broadus VS.. Broad
us Call. SAG.
Courts of Equity delight TO follow
trust property into whatsoever guilty
hand il may go There are no innocent
purchasers involved here. and fraud In
the procurement of the agreement having
been proved. the decree below must be
reversed.
PARTIES TO WRIT OF ERROR.
Petition for mandamus TO compel city
Of Radford and its Conditioning the
rnembers-to levy taxes 10 pay interest
on bonds of the city held by petitioner
The city did not answer. The members
the East Ward one, those In the west
another. Court below held answers IN
sufficient and awarded peremptory man
damus: writ Of error thereon.
Held The writ OF error was improperly
awarded plaintiffs in error were not
narties except as members OF the Councn
in It's corporate capacity. The duty TO be
performed was a corporate duty. and the
Council the body created and organized
for the express purpose Of doing this
duty and others. II the members OF the
Council failed 10 obey the court the dis
obedlent could have been punished for
contempt, but It was none the less an
order TO the Council in its corporate ca
pacity Leavenworth Company VS.. Sell
lew. % U. s.. Ga: 2 Dillon Munic. Corp.
Sec. 96l.
II the members OF the Council desired
90 have the judgment reviewed by this
court they could do so only by applying
~ n writ &c e~r0- in thcir corporate
not IN their individual capacity. nor as
representatives OF either ward: Tor I'm
these capacities they were not parties 20
the petition. Code. Sec. 1884; Board OF
Supervisors. Culpcper County vs.. Gorren
20 Graft. fS4. Dismissed
DELINQUENT LANDS.
Brown VS.. Christian. clerk. Reversed.
Opinion by Harrison. J.
Petition for mandamus, involving con-