Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-11-18

the property subject 10 the Mart men,
and is entitled to hold that lien for his
protection. Where the legal ownership
of the land and the absolute ownership
of the encumhrance become vested IN me
same person, the intention governs the
merger If the intention has been ex-
pressed IL controls; If not expressed, the
intention will be presumed from wnat
apDears to be the best interest OF the
party as shown by all the circumstances.
Pomeroy, sec. 79l Sheldon on Suorogr
sec "a. -,
The purchase by Ferguson June 3D.,
and the conveyance to him by Hart
trustee Of the trust property. in Novem-
Der following did not merge, eHtlhguisn,
or impair the lien created by the trust
deed TO Hart of April 9Th, but I'm equity
it will be kept alive and in force ior the
protection of his title.
ASSESSMENT WAIVER.
Monger VS.. Rockingham II. NJ. Ins. Co.
Reversed. Opinion by Keith, i.
Mrs. Showalter, mother of Mrs. Mon
ger. was dcvisee for life of certain real
ty with remainder TO Mrs. Monger.
After Mrs. Showalter's death her nus,
band remained in possession ana cohtfoi
of the property. During the mother me-
| time the buildings We're Insured Dy the
| the insured property is subject 10 re-
valuation at intervals of five years.
Certain provisions of the charter are 10
All persons subscribing thereto, their
! executors administrators. and assigns,
and vendees continuing to he insured
| Herewith. thereby become members Wnile
| they remain insured, or until they Will
| draw in accordance with the regulations.
| , If q member die. his widow or otheI
| leroI commemorative holds his relation 10
| The company unless notice Of withdrawal;
| on proper notice the property may ne
| withdrawn. ii no charges against IL, upon
notice that an heir or transIeree wished
1
| dorsed the certificate OF insurance Trains
| ferred" naming the benenclaIy.
After Mrs. Showalter's death the pro
| pertV stood insured in the name OF heI
! husband. and assessments WeIe iiiS az ,Sot
| against and paid by him. August -, 1871,
| the control of the property was turned
| over to Mrs. Monger. who had utle
| thereto after her mothers death, uhueI
| her grandfather's VIII; ana a ceItiiiCate
| was issued TO her. embracing all the pro-
| nertv heretofore insured and other Items
| which increased the amount OF insurance
| several hundred dollars. -,
| prior 10 August sd assessments hdu
| been made against Showalter Tor TWO
losses. amounting TO Sl.55, which sum Was
| demanded of him in notlce' OGloDer -
| 1891 and again March 8, ls'". In May,
| 1895. at a meeting of the company nst
| of delinquents was read. ana on We
| the name of Mrs. Monger, as to these
| two assessments, whereupOn her husDanu'
! then present. stated he would pay them'
| Mrs M while not i'm the meeting, was
! near by, and was informed that me coIl-
! pany held her responsible 1or tnfst a..
| seesments and it was after TINS lnlt
| notice of the assessment Of June 49, 1919
| was sent her. which embraced those as
sessments, and a subsequent one OF Sl'95'
aggregating 1924. of past-due assessliig -;
| If Is conceded that Mrs. VI. has pald All
| assessments made against hti Sil4OV -"
| gust 23 1891. , 800,
| In June. 1894. her barn was burned, ana
the company defended on tile ground tnat
| she was delinquent in the payment OF the
| assessments. aggregating N.a3. she con,
| tended before the jury % that she hau
| paid all assessments; 90 that the contro-
| Verted assessments were not nue by Hci .
! IN waiver of forfeiture by the company
| Held. Mrs Monger's liability for as
| sessments was purely personal, ana theS
| constituted no charge or lien on the pro
| perty insured. She does not stand on lhe
| certificate originally issued TO ShoWalter'
her father, but on her own right as SHOWN ,,N,i
| by a certificate of membership 10 ner,
| not as transferred, but as an Original
| member. She was not liable 10 the com
pany for the $l.55 assessments:
| 9 Waiver-The conclusion Just stated
! Is conclusive of the case. but there is
| evidence tending strongly 10 show a
| waiver by the company or It's rlSht "
| forfeiture because of the non-paymen'
| by Mrs. NJ. of the $l.55 assessments, as
! Stunning that she was liable Tor theIh
| 1891 when a certificate was issued IN heI
| name recognizing her as a member and
| insuring her property. At intervals aAteI
| that time until her loss assessments We
| made against her, which she PAID ana
the company received These facts are
evidence tending to show the waiver re-
lied on. which should have gone to the
Jury Wit$ proper Instructions.
An unconditional acceptance OF al
assessment valves all former known
grounds of forfeiture. Rice VS.. y. f.
Aid Soc. IL n. T.. Rep, 62i; Roswell vs.
Equit. Aid Union, - Fed. Rep $40
sURVIvORSHIP.
SNYDER &c. VS.. Grandstaff, &c. Affirmed
Opinion by Cardwel, j.
Israel Allen provided by VIII that alter
the death of his wife his whole estate
should pass to his three grandchildren
l.. A. Snyder, Joseph ". Snyder, anC
Amanda Long-in equal shares, but OF
the death of either without issue thai
share TO pass TO the survivors.
| By deeds OF July, 1888. partition was
made among the heirs. the said parties
desiring To vest exclusive title 10 the
several parcels of land III the said parties
TO whom they had been assigned ana al
lotted, respectively" in consideration o.
81
In April. 1896, Joseph Snyder, referring
to the deed of 1895 for description, con
yeyed the real estate embraced therein
TO Flora Grandstaff. upon the espresso
consideration Of 81 in hand PAID. ana OF
| the same day he married her. The dec
was recorded the next day. and within
six weeks Snyder died without issue 81
the possibility Of issue.
1 Now come l.. \. Snyder and Armand;
Long and Lee Long, her husband, claim
ing the real estate by virtue of survivor
ship; alleging that under a proper con
struction of the deed of 1895 they neye
parted with this interest; but, II said dee'
be otherwise construed, that II was exc
| al t,,fcf al 10 on
trary 10 the real intention Of the parties
Plaintiffs take dispositions 10 show mu
! tual mistake defendants 10 show tina
the consideration was marriage; ana TN
widow denies any mistake In the deed
| and claims to be purchaser Tor NaIue
and without notice.
Held: purchaser for value and with
out notice is not affected by any laten
equity. A mutual mistake stands on tn
same footing as any other equity, am
no relief I'm equity can be had as agains
bona fde purchaser Tor value withou
notice Kerr on Fraud and Mistake i56
pom Eou.. sec 776; Carter vs.. Allen,
Graft. Rorer Iron Co. W.. Trout, - va
, as ,..o,,.,.., ,,-ts,
followed by marriage. is coneusively pre-
sumed TO be in consideration OF mar
, riage. and is based on valuable console
! rafion--the highest consideration. Stt!l
vs Arden | John Oh. X. ri; Huston "
cantreIl ii Leigh; Herring vs.. Wickhan
% craft: Welles vs.. Coles, . Graft. CT
a voluntary deed before marriage upo
marriage becomes deed Tor valuabl
consideration. The change made by IN
! code section 24.9. was Intended 10 defea
frauds perpetrated upon existing creditor
hy the marriage of an insolvent debtor
ACCOMPANIED by gifts to his vile. Belor
this change man was allowed 10 90 10
!, his concubine what he could not DO 10
! lis w1e Complainants here do not clair
orodff0rS hut paramount pun