Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-29
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MAR TIN,
Exclusively for Virginian-Pil

NIGHTS BANK OF DANvILLE V.
BALLOU.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
February-S, 1899.
THD RELATION OF PRINCIPAL
AND AGENT BETWEEN THE
BENEFICIARIES IN A DEED AND
THE TRUSTEE, BEGINS WHEN
THE TRANSACTION Is CONFLICT
ED.
IF n TRUSTEE REFUSES TO
ACT Ills SUCCESSOR IS SUBSTI-
TUTED TO ALL RIGHTS. AND
THE TRUST IN HIS HANDS
TAINTED WITH ALL THE IMPER-
FECTIONS. THAT ATTACHED IN
THE HANDS OF THE ORIGINAL
TRUSTEE.
IN SUCH CASE THE BENEFICIAL
-R1ES ARE BOUND BY THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL
TRUSTEE OF a PRIOR DEED.
THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE y JUDO
MENT AGAINST LAND CANNOT
BE TAKEN AWAY by SUISSE
QUENT LEGISLATION.
This was a suit in chancery in which
arose the priority of various liens. In
1892 Ballou conveyed 10 Lawson, trus-
tee, Il mil 10 secure bank $1,000.
This deed was recorded April l3, 1898.
on April l.. 1898, BallOu conveyed the
same property to Darlington ana Wat
kins. trustees, to secure numerous
creditors, and this deed was recorded
April II. 1893. The trustees in this lat
ter deed knew OF the making of the
first deed before the execution of the
deed TO them, but they knew nothing of
the deed to themselves until after it
was put on record. There were certain
judgments obtained against Ballou
after the making of the first deed, and
this deed had been acknowledged be-
fore the president OF the banle which 1t
secured. The lower court decided that
the trustees took subject to the deed
made to secure the bank. but that the
judgments were prior to it. The trus-
tees and the bank both appealed. The
court says:
In contemplation of law the rela-
ton of principal and agent between
the trustee named in n deed and the
benefciaries under it, begins when the
transaction is completed. The trustee
named may not act when Informed OF
his appointment. but his acceptance is
presumed until he declines and when
he refuses to act Il successor is APP
pointed who takes his shoes. and is
substituted to all the rights and rcspon-
sib.litles of the position as II he had
been originally appointed. and the trust
In his hands Is tainted with all the i'm
PROJECTIONS that attached to 1t in the
hands of the original trustee. 1t is not
necessary to the validity of the deed
that 1t should be executed by the trus-
tee or the bcnehciaries, or even that
they. as n matter OF fact. should know
n re h. -s,l,t Ia
creditor come to him through the trus-
tee, and so 1t has been repeatedly held
by this court that the knowledge of the
trustee fa-prior existing deed is i'm
puted to the creditor Under the set
tied law of this State Darlington and
Watkins are under the deed in Qucs-
ton, purchasers for value. and under
the facts proven they are purchasers
with notice, for they were, confessedly.
Mt the time of the execution and re-
cordation of the deed to them fully
possessed of the fatal knowledge of the
first deed. which made the second deed
subordinate to the first.
The Bank of South Boston assigns
rs error. to it's prejudice the action of
the court in giving the lien of certain
judgments priority over its deed OF
trust. This deed was Acknowledged be-
fore the president of and n stakeholder
in the Bank of South Boston, the ben
eficiary Hereunder. and was therefore
not duly recorded as against the judg-
ments in question. It is however, con-
tended that the defect in it's acknowl-
edgment and recordation was cured by
an Act of Assembly. approved March /.
1894. Acts of 1894. p. $50 II is un-
qucstonably true that the Legislature
has power to pass retroactive laws
within certain limits. even though
such laws may affect a certain class
Of vested rights. Town of Danville V.
Pace. % Graft /. The reasoning of the
learned judge and the authorities cited.
make 1t clear that it is not within the
proper limits of the law making power
to disturb vested rights of property by
retroactive Legislation. There can be
no doubt that n judgment is such a
vested right of property. that the leg
islature cannot, by n retroactive law,
either destroy or diminish it's value
When these judgments were obtained
the creditor. Enthusiastically had n
clear statutory right to enforce them
against the real estate in controversy
and it would seem to be equally clear
that such a right is a vested right that
cannot be taken away by subsequent
legislation. Affirmed.
ADAMS WICK co. V. INTERSTATE
b. AND l.. ASSN.
Supreme Court OF Alabama