Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1900-01-26
COURT OF APPEALS.

Tabb ct ais VS.. Commonwealth et ais
Circuit Court of Henrico county. Opiu-
ion by Judge Rely.
The question for decision in this case
is whether the taxes and levies, which
accrued during the estate of tenant for
life, are liens on the estate OF the re-
mainder and enforceable against it.
Alter review at length the statutes
with respect to the assessment OF taxes
and levies on real estate, their collec-
tior, and the means provided for the en-
forcement of the lien therefor created
upon the land, the courts holds that
they are required to be assessed in the
name of and against the person who by
himself or his tenant has the freehold
iu possession; that upon him and no one
else are they made a personal liability,
aud that only his goods and chattels
and the life estate OF the life tenant are
bound for the taxes.
The contention of the counsel for the
city of Richmond that even ii the lien
CT the Commonwealth be only co-exten'
s.vs with its taxes, nevertheless, the
lien OF the city for its taxes is IN all
cases on the fee, is not sustained ana
the court hold ng that the lien given
upon real,estate for taxes assessed there
on was intended to be lien on the es-
tate OF the person assessed Herewith.
For taxes which accrued during the
estate of the tenant for life and assessed
apainst him, the lien is only upon the
life estate and does not extend to the
reversion or remainder.
The lien for taxes and levies assessed
OF real estate, whether they are ASSESS
cd for the Commonwealth or counties.
or for the city of Richmond, is only up
or the estate assessed with taxes.
Decree reversed, Judge Cardwell dis
sented.
10 the case of Kirschbaum q Com
pany VS.. Blair g. Company, from the
law ana Equity Court of Richmond,
Judge Cardwell delivers this opinion
Welsiger & Brother, of Richmond,
catered into @ contract with Kirsch-
baum & Company, of Philadelphia, to
travel and sell their goods on commis-
SION of s per cent. on "all accepted
saies," Blair & Jacobs becoming their
sureties 10 the penalty OF S2.OOO.
Kirschbaum & Company from time to
lime advanced them money to defray
their personal as we'll as business ex-
penses before any sales were made
The advaucements to Weisiger q
Brother aggregated $1,36S, when the
gross sales made by them, none OF
which had been accepted by Kirsch-
| baum g. Company, amounted to only
$3.50
Il was contended by their sureties
that the advancemonts made by Kirsch
baum e. Co. were not authorized by the
| terms of the contract between the par
ties and they were not bound.
Held: The liability of q surety OF
ouarantor cannot be extended by i'm
plicaion. Their liability is always
striciissimi juris and cannot be extend
ed bv construction. To the extent and
in the manner and under the circum
stances pointed out in his obligation ne
is hound, and no further.
Saws the court "ID this case, with
proyision in the contract authorizing
,sdyauces to Weisiger & Brother wheI
warranted" by their accepted safes
sintiffs 10 error not only seek TO en-
force a liabili, y on defendants IN erro
for large advances to their principals
for private as we'll as business purposess s
before there were accepted sales;" "a
vances before there were any sales q
all: but also an advance before the cor
tract went into effect. To enforce tni
demand it would have to be held that
surety was bound for what his primer
pal was bound, although it is conceo
ed that bis liability Is etric'lssim
iuris. II"
Judgment affirmed.
By Judge John A. Buchanan :,
Florence, trustee, w. Morien ct al:
Circnit Court for the county Cf Henri
co. Affirmed.
By Judge George M. Harrison
Henderson W.. Commonwealth. vi
cult Court OF Rockingham county. a.
irmed. r-:
Richmond Railway and Electrl
Company VS.. city of Richmond. hus'
NOS Court CITY of Richmond. Writ
error aud supersedess. BOND, 800.
Wadlev vs.. c Commonwealth. Circu'
Court of Wythe county. Writ OF err'
4wsrded.
Adkins vs. city OF Richmond. Furthe
argued and submitted.
Peyton's administrator vs. Perkinsol
&c. Argued and continued.
The next cases to be argued are Dul
osn We. CITY of Lynchburg; and Ricl
: : mond Traction Company vs. Murphy,
9 Q Nop. "a and 35, on the argument docl