Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-26

deed upon whose certificate Il was admit
ted 10 record.
subsequently,. appellees obtained 1udg-
nent against the grantors. and flied their
bill to subject the land so conveyed.
charging among other things that the
recordation OF the deed OF trust vas not
constructive notice to them because the
acknowledgment OF the grantors before
an officer who was one OF the grantees
therein did not authorize It to be put
upon record, and that they had priority
over the trust lien.
Held; A grantee in a deed, or bene-
hciary under 1t, IL not authorized as an
officer to take an acknowledgment of Il,
with View to Its registration, and his
certificate Of acknowledgment is no au-
thority for admitting 1t to record. Hence
recordation based upon II Is without
effect as notice by construction urder
the registry laws Davis VS.. Beasley, rs
Va, 491; Nicholson vs.. Gloucester Charity
School. SO Va, 10i-4-'5, and cases cited:
Clinch-River Veneer Company VS.. Kurth,
30 Va, 49,
The fact that thu trustee who took the
acknowledgment may not have known
that he was a grantee in the deed at that
time, and afterwards. upon ascertaining
the fact, refused to accept the trust, does
not change the rule, which is based upon
ought to be Judge in his own case, or n
ministerial officer in his own behalf It
can work no hardship TO adhere infexi-
| bly, TO the rule, heretofore announced by
| this Court. and by Most OF the courts
In this country, that a grantee in q deed,
or a beneficiary under il, is incapable OF
taking or certifying an acknowledgment
Of It for recordation. Many cases cited
in notes to Cooper vs.. Hamilton, Sc
Amer. st. Rep. 795, 79S. &c.
UsURY; TITLE OF ACT.
Bosang VS.. Iron-Belt Building and Loan
Association. Affirmed. Opinion by Har-
rison, il
This association was organized In 1880, |
under court charter, with power TO con- |
duct general building and loan bust |
ness, which was amended and enlarged |
by the Legislature February 90 1896. |
whereby "all contracts heretofore made |
and entered into by and between the
said company and its members under
said bylaws and former charter, and not |
incompatible with this charter, are here
by validated and confirmed"
Appellant contends that Ceilings be-
tween him and the associat;g. rs1er the
court charter were usurious, and that
the Legislature had no power, in grant
Ing the new charter, to validate and con.
firm the previous Illegal transactions.
Held: This contention was settled by
this court in the recent case of Smoot
VS.. Peoples p, l., and b. Association,
50 Va, wherein It was held that statutes
which validate contracts, otherwise In
valid, are sustained when they go no
further than TO bind a party by con-
tract which he has attempted to enter
into, but which was invalid by reason OF |
some personal inability on his part TO |
make II, or through neglect OF some legal
formality, or I'm consequence Of some in, |
gredient in the contract forbidden by
law. There is no distinction between the |
case cited and this.
AS TO the constitutional objection. no
law shall embrace moro than one object |
which shall be expressed in the title !
The title Of the act Is. IAN act to pro-
vide new charter for the Iron Belt
Building and Loan Association" 1t Is
insisted that tho provision, validating and
confirming transactions between the
company and its members under the !
court charter Is not contemplated nor
covered by the title; that it has two dis {
tlnct objects-one, granting a new char I
ter; tho other, validating its acts under Q
the court charter. c
Held: Tho constitutional provision was I
not designed 10 embarrass legislation by
making laws unnecessarily restrictive I'm B
heir scope and operation, and thus null 8
-iplying their number The title will be | n
held sufficient If the things authorized {
% be done, though Of a diverse nature. L
nay be fairly regarded as in futherance I
" the object expressed in the title All L
hat IS required is that the subjects en- 8
'raced In the statute, but not expressed |
n the title be congruous and have ma N
ural connection with, or be germane to
ne subject expressed in the title. And
he constitution is to be literally con-
trued so as to uphold the law, II prac-
icable. Iverson Browns case, 81 Va,
62; Town ot Mahomet VS.. Quackenbush, |
II u. S., 9S2. "
Nor Is tho limited power 70 borrow ca
money conferred by section 6 OF the new V
harter such a radical departure from se
ne original design and purpose of the al
ompany as would necessitate the assent m
I each member thereof in order that ht
e be bound by II. ST
LEASE AT WILL pu
glesby's Txecutrix VS.. Hughes, &c. Az
frmed. Opinion by Harrison, J.t sa
In December, 1889. Oglesby contracted IN
18th appellees leasing to them for ten Ia
Ears the right 10 mine ores on two pa
acts Of land. Appellees were 10 pay a no
'yalty of rs cents per ton on all ore ii'
lined, wero TO remove an average OF III
ot less than 1900 tons a year, were to in'
ny, and did pay, 5000 in advance of co
yalties, TO be reimbursed them on the d
st LEGO tons taken outi were to have "a
timber on the premises necessary for W. W.
lining purposes, not to include timber -,
liable for rails or lumber; TO use the IeN
ater and wash ores on the premises ~
It TO maintain mud-dams and settling | -,
nds in such case. In case OF failure | 80
comply, they should forfeit all rights. od
d the agreement and lease become null ~.
d void. They proceeded to make pre- 90
rations for mining and spent much mo
oney in machinery, houses, tramways, ia
:, and much time in these necessary T
operations for carrying out the con- 70
act. cor
n less than sixteen months the lessor,l scr
ID his bill, charging that the lessees mi.
re tenants at will, and declaring his neil
rpose to terminate the lease praying | az
rescission, for an injunction on all | bac
-ther operations under the lease, for | the
account Of the ores removed and the me-
ount due for alleged violations OF the | gus
1tract in using timber not allowed, cles
ling to erect dams. &C., and failing to 1890
70 out 1000 tons of ore the first year. resi-
.ppellees answered, and asked that
,ir answer be treated as a cross-blIl:
hitting the lease TO be an estate at NJ
L. that since fling the bill by lessor | bee
" have ceased TO operate under IL and | Wis,
making preparations TO surrender tho | tIia