Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-06-01


TERED MORTGAGE, EVEN
THCu GIL THE SECOND MORT
GAGEh; HAS ACTUAL NOTICE or
THE FIRST
a CERTIFICATE OF THE AC-
ENOWLE.DGMENT or HUSBAND
AND WIFE TO a DEED IS NOT
INVALID BECAUSE TAKEN Icy
An OFFICER RELATED TO THEM
This IVES an action to foreclosc 4
mortgage by plaintiff and which had
been duly Registered. Tie Defendants
had cXccu.ed u second mortgage to
Worth (: Wcrth. who claimed priority
to l'~!ntim's mortgage because the Of
foer VINO took the acknowledgement
thereto was the brother of The husband
I;Gntor rnere WAS Il decree FOX plain
iii AID Worth X Worth appealed.
I've court says:
Mhelher this made the regisira ton of
tie :irst mortgage taken upon such ac-
ADVANCEMENT VOID. Is the vital Gies-
tsr1 la this case; for II IL did. no notice
OF tie first unregistered mortgage. how
ever lul! and explicit. would bind the
Sc nd mCrtra"ee.
~ virtue e. ihc Code (scction l0i[3D,
tho proh@ a Of Il deed by n clerk Of the
court. tEcuSh Upon an nowledment
aHd rr!Ny examination I ken by a jus
to- Of the nescc. is void, If the cleri.
or MS wife & a party to the deed, or .
subscribing witness thereto. Long "
Cf,WS. li3 y. G. 2i6 holds that an ac-
knpWlcdrmcnt and privy examination
takcn before Justice of the peace is n
Ju"icia !. or at least a quasi judicial act
ARD cites numerous cases where pro-
hrfc and registration were void be-
cause based upon an acknowledgment
h'i rriVy examination before IN officer
Who by reason of his locality had no
power 10 take them. This We $ Il defect
apparent upon the face Of the record
Long V. Crews wont further. and held
that the same principle invalidated mn
ACKNOWLEDGMENT and privy examination
before an o'iccr who was Il marty
trustee. or cestui que trust in the deed
The decisions have carried the doctrine
no further. Here neither the probate
nor the ACKNOWLEDGMENT and privy OK
animation was had before an officer
who was either party. trustee. or ccstui
que trust in the decd. and the Justice
OF the li"arc aud the grantors resided
within the county in which the ac-
FrowlfdGW eni and privy examination
wee taken. as was provided by the
tcce tScciion l2icl ID. There is no prin-
ci0lc Of law. nor precedent. which in
Nalidat"s ~ Acknowledgement and priv.
cN9mi0a''on taken before IN officer who
mas neither anT interest in The instru-
ment. Nrr is q party thereto. simply be-
ca"se 10 Is related to the parties Such
proceeding is not adversary and tho
N"o"lcd'-lncHt ana privy examination
arc In the nature of deciarat lions
Hinsi .niorHs' of lie rolativcs making
ln'm, nc person claiming hereunder
ar STRANGERS. Certainty an officer can
a'n' ir'"'er IN oath 10 Il relative in an
~ n'rtc proceeding in which the OH.
cor "a "7i'hor party nor Interested
ara this SIS "f no higher dignity. While
rronr'c;H n'iGh. discOuraga an officer
ia|irr ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ana rriv,, ~
ar''nH'io0 cf Instruments whore tho
,''"' oS thereto are nearly related f.
'"rr is no T --rr-fr1rryy 70
., Th" co.rt below properly oaiudrea
serrnd lro"t-erc must he subordinate
to tie fist mortgage Affirmed.
CARPENTER Y. CAPITAL ELECT.
COMPANY.
supreme Court of Illinois
Fchruar: u, 1899.
WHERE ADJoiNING LOT OWNERS
ACQUIRED THEIR LOTS FROM
THE SAME GRANTOR BY DEEDS
WHICH RESERVED AN ALLEY IN
THE Rear. THE ENTIRE ALLEY
INJURIES TO THE USE OF THE
ABuTTING LOT OWNERS ALONE.
IN SUCH CASE ONE LOT OWNER
CANNOT HAVE WIRES AND
POLES RUN ALONG THE ALLEY
TO FURNISH HIM WITH EI.Ec.
TRIO LIGHTS. WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF ALL THE OTHER
OWNERS: AND EQUITY WILL EN-
JOIN SUCH USE CT THE ALLEY.
This was suit in chancery by Car
penter and others. owners of a lot in
Springfield. praying that the electric
company be compelled 10 take down
some wires, etc, extending over Il pri-
vate alley in rear of their lot The
lower court dismissed the bill and plain
Tins appealed. The tenant of the build
Ing adjoining appellants land request
ed appellee to introduce electric lights
INTO his building which was done and
the wires strung along the alley in rear
or the property. The alley was created
by reservation made in the deeds to
the lot owners, Ill from the same
grhntor, which reserved a strip of land
in rear OF said lots ten feet in width
ito be used as an alley"
The court says:
Inc alley in the rear of <he building
OF appellants is a private alley. created
for the use of the appellants and of the
owners of the two lots lying west of
the lot OF the appellants. The fee of
that portion of the alley in the rear of
the building of the appellants was in
the appellants, as owners of the abut- |
ting property, subject however to the
right of the property owners on the
wess to use the strip of land reserved
for the purposes of an alley. The
question then Is, whether tho onnollee
had the right to extend electric wires
over the portion of the alley in the
rear OF the building of appellants.
without the consent of appellants. The