Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-17

y : III.
January %, 1900
THb COURT OF APPEALS HAS NO
JURISDICTION WHERE THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES IN QUESTION
WAS UNDER $500, AND THE IT.
TIE 10 THE LAND TAXED WAS
NOT IN QUESTION.
"A DEED CONVEYING ALL THE IN
TEREST OF THE GRANTOR IN
THE LAND LYING IN A SPECI-
FLED COUNTY OF WHICH A GER
TAIN PARTY DIED SEIZED AND
POSSESSED, IS SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINITE 10 CONSTITUTE NO.
T1cE TO SUBSEQUENT PUR-
CHASERS
The points decided appear from the
opinion of the court
The court says:
II does not appear that the taxes in
controversy, either to the State or
county, amount to the sum of $500. This
court is, therefore. without Jurisdiction
90 lar'aS the decree complained of is In
favor of the Commonwealth ana the
county Of Henrico, unless the title to
.ne real estate Is drawn in question, as
appellants contend. 1t does not appear
US counsel for appellants insist that the
Auditor had become the purchaser of
the land upon the failure of the life
tenant to pay the taxes and that the
commemorative title thus acquired is
drawn in question
IRON these facts, and they are sub
Stuntially all that are disclosed by the
record Med In this court as to the con-
troVersy between the appellants; and
me commonwealth and county of Hen
ilco. IL Is clear that the question raised
&
was as TO the lien of the taxes upon.
and not as to the title OF the appellants
10, the land, and that this court Is
without Jurisdiction to review the de-
cree so far as 1t Is In favor Of the Com
monwealth and the county of Henrico.
FROM the commissioners report and
the exception to 1t it appears that the
controversy In this case between the
trust creditors is over the property de-
scriped in the prior deed of trust MS
al inc right. title and interest of said
hicnard Is. A1orien and wife, in and
TO the real estate lying In the county
or Henrico of which Richard Moricn
dleu seized and possessed" Is that de-
scrlption sufficient to give notice to
subsequent purchasers under the regis
try laws?
The object Of the registry laws is to
compel every person receiving an In
strument required to be registered to
piice 1t upon the records in order that
he may thereby protect his own rights
as well as those who may afterwards
acquire nm interest in the same proper
ty. The recorded instrument is sudl-
Client to operate as constructive notice
under the registry laws IL the property
be SO described or identified that q sub
sequent purchaser or incumbrancer
would have the means OF aecertaining
with accuracy what and where 1t was.
and the language used be such that. IL
he should examine the instrument tt
self, he would obtain thereby actual
notice of all the rights which were in
tended To be created or conferred by It,.
The deed in this case shows from
whom the property In controversy was
derived or acquired, In what county It
was located. and that all the grantor's
right. title and interest therein was in
tended to pass by 1t for the purposes for
which 1t was executed. No subsequent
purchaser or encumbrancer could have
read that deed without obtaining actual
notice of all the rights which the ben
eficiary under 1t Is now asserting.
We are Of opinion, therefore. that 1t
was sufficient in law to charge subsc-
quent purchasers with notice thereof
and that the appellant. Florence, trus.
tee. must be deemed to have had notice
OF 1t and to take subject to the lien
thereof. Affirmed.