Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-02-12
AS TO RETROACTIVE LAWS.
Learned Discussion i'm an Opinion by
Judge Harrison.


One OF the most interesting cases de-
cided by the Supreme Court Of Appeals
last week was one involving, among other
things, the question as to the power Of
the Legislature to make retroactive laws.
The case is one which comes up on APP
peal from the Circuit Court OF Halifax
county.
on September q. 1892 c. +. Ballou con-
veyed TO r. w. lawson, trustee, a certain
mill property to secure the Bank of South
Boston 5000 The deed was not recorded
until April H. 1893. on April -, 1899 c. f..
Ballou conveyed the same property 10
j. VI. Darlington and H. j. Watkins.
trustees, to secure numerous creditors.
This last deed was recorded April ID.
1893, one day tefOre the deed given to
Lawson. In a short time Darlington and
Watkins proceeded to execute their deed
by advertising the property for sale. on
May H. 1893. an injunction stopping the
sale was issued upon the ground that
Darlington and Watkins had noticeoc the
deed for the benefit Of the appellee. the
Bank Of South Boston, and that there
fore, neither they nor the benefciarles
under their deed had acquired priority
over appellee by its recordaton. The
Court held that the benefciaries under
the Darlington and Watkins deed took In
subordinaton to the Bank Of South B0s-
ton.
Judge Harrison writes the opinion that
sustains the decree OF the lower court
After a learned discussion OF the duties
and powers OF trustees and the rights Of
creditors, the opinion says: "Under the
settled law Of this State, Darlington and
Watkins are, under the deed in question,
purchasers for value. and under the facts
proven they are purchasers with notice,
for they were, cOnfessedly. at the time
OF the execution and recordation Of the
deed 10 them, fully possessed Of the fatal
knowledge Of the first deed which made
the second deed subordinate 20 the first"
Several other points OF the law OF deeds
with reference 10 the priority Of recOrda-
ton are discussed.
The act OF the Legislature (Acts, 1888
"a. page 500 IS construed. The contention
IL that this act is remedial, curative,
and validating statute, and that II was In
the power OF tho Legislature 10 make II
retroactive so as 10 cure any defect In the
recordation OF the deed in question In
an able. discussion OF the power OF the
LEGISLATURE 20 enact retroactive legisla-
ton. the Court says IL has such power
within certain limits even though such
laws NAV affect a certain class Of vested
rights. A Judgment is a vested right
OF property that cannot be affected by
q retroactive law. The opinion says the
contention that the effect of the statute
I'm question is not 10 impair the validity
OF the Judgment, but only 10 modify the
remedy for its enforcement is untenable.
'If. then. the lien OF a judgment be, as
commended" says the opinion. IA mere
remedy for enforcing the judgment, the
statute which gives that remedy forms a
part OF the contract for the lien. and any
law which takes away such a remedy
impairs the obligation OF a contract"
In concluding the very able opinion, Judge
Harrison quotes:
You take my house when you do take
the prop
That doth sustain my house: You take
my life
When YOU do take the means whereby !
live"
Judge Keith dssents from so much OF
the opinion as affirms the decree appealed
from on the question on cross appeal
under Rule 9.
The decree OF the lower court is affirm
ed