Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-10


Is only one of thousands.
missioner stated the amount of the liens.
but not in the order Of their prorities.
There was much shifting Of the case from
court to court but the following conclu-
slons were finally reached:
l. Carnahan assigns as error the want
or jurisdiction in the Hastings Court of
Radford TO enter the decree complained
or. lie appeared in that court, and moved
a continuance OF the case The mere fact
or party taking and agreeing to a con-
tinuance Is evidence Of having made him
self party 10 the record. and of his
having recognized the case as I'm court.
~ Is too late afterwards for him TO say
ne has not been regularly brought into
court. Bell VS.. Farmyille Railroad, 81
Va, l04
1t appears from the face Of the bill that
there were two deeds Of trust on the
property sought To DO sold to pay the
debt, and Carnahan's demurrer was on
the ground that the trustees were not
made parties.
z. AS a rule, the trustees In the several
Deeds and all the creditors therein named
should be made parties either by process
or convention. When the plaintiff has only
an equitable right in the thing demanded.
the person having legal right should be
HeNo party, Tor otherwise his legal
right would not be bound by the decree
l Barton Oh. Pract., 178; / Daniel en-.
Pract, 1872. 1873; Kenrick VS.. whitney. %
Graft, GAG. The demurrer was well taken.
ana should have been sustained but II IL
by no means clear that the decree should
be reversed for that error. The Court
OVerruled the demurrer but directed the
persons to be made parties, whose alb
sence constituted the only ground upon
which the demurrer could have been sus-
tained. Had II been sustained there would
have been an order 10 make the proper
parties, and in the case Of formal parties
1t is not usual 10 remand TO rules for that
purpose.
:. The decree must be reversed for an
other error Land cannot be sold under
a decree until the liens binding on IT,
their amounts, and the order Of their
prlorities have been established QKenrick
VS.. Whitney, supra, the object being TO
obtain the best price for the property. |
To accomplish this those holding liens |
MUST be advised beforehand as TO the |
amount Of their liens, and the order In |
which they stand. Herein the commits |
sioner's report was defective, and while |
not excepted to for this cause, the de- |
feet is apparent upon its face. and in |
such case objection may be taken in this |
court. Barton, CHI, Pr, Sec. GAS.
4. The Wytheyille Building and Loan |
Association, having appeared before the /
and proved it's debt and |
thus become a substantial party TO the |
cause, in a position 10 appeal from an
adverse decree, apd TO take the benefit
OF a favorable decision, can not be per-
mitted to escape the consequences, and
must be adjudged liable for the costs Of
this appeal
RATIFICATION.
Anderson, &c, VS.. The Creston Land
Company. Affirmed. Opinion by Keith,
L.
The appellants, John and George Ander-
son, were in Salem in 1Se0-boom time
the guests Of their uncles, G. ,. and r.
II. Lyon. They purchased lots-tWo from
The Creston Land Company, Of which
their uncle was president, and contem-
plated purchasing a third from Zirkle,
I the title proved atisfactory-leavng
400 with their uncle TO make a payment
+ the title was good.
This purchase was not consummated. |
md the Lyons instead OF returning the
money, took 1t upon themselves 10 invest
l. They formed a syndicate-as specula-
i've associations called themselyes-and |
purchased ten lots from the Creston Com
)any for S,45O-One-third cash, balance |
n one and two years-the Andersons each
o have an undivided one-ffth interest. |
nd the lots to be free from ncumbrance. |
they knew nothing OF IL at the time, but !
n about two months were informed by |
etter from their uncle Of the investment, |
nd that there was lacking $500 to pay
he amount due. After consulting to-
-ether they agreed that their uncle had
10 right so 10 use their money, but John
anderson deposes, 'as the uncle stated.
hey had made a big bargain, and would {
lever have any more money TO pay"
heck was sent for the amount. Certain I
ssurances were made when they bought
he two lots, of graded streets, reservoirs
wellings on adjoining lots, &c, and a ,
eed free from all encumbrances. When !
ayments fell due appellants objected,
ecause these assurances had not been ! !
UTILIZED, and IL was ascertained that the I
tie was encountered; but upon the en- +
umbrances being removed and a suffi- I
lent deed rendered, they paid the balance Z
ne on those lots and obtained title. They \
ow claim they had right 10 rely upon
ne same assurances given with the two A
us, and this may be conceded, and there /
strong inference that the terms OF the 4
lies were identical. 1t is admitted that
10 Lyons had been given no authority
, make the investment, and on notice of
the AnderSons were at liberty to ratify .
: repudiate the assumed agency y
Held: Their act in sending the check .
az ratification OF the unauthorized act
hey contend that IL was done In ignor- s
ice Of material facts, but admit the re- Ii
int OF q letter from Lyon e. Brother, | q
18Th ON co a far Salem ipf | u