Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-17
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vlRcINiAN-PILoT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
FREDERICK ". cox.


Supreme Court of Appeals, West Va
November Is, 1899.
THE TITLD OF a PURCHASER
UNDER A DECREE OF COURT
j WILL NOT FALL WITH IT'S RE-
WERSAL.
The court says:
In a suit in equity in the Circuit
Court of Ritchie county, of Terrell &
Fcrrell against Frederick, 10 sell Fred
erick's land for payment of Judgments,
there was decree for it's sale, under
which 1T was sold to Ash and Patton,
the sale confirmed, and the land was
conveyed under the decree of confirma-
ton. by a commissioner. to the pur-
clasers. and they conveyed it to Cox.
Later q bill OF review was filed by
Frederick to reverse these DEGREES,
and they were reversed, the deed to
theepurchasers Cancelled, the deed from
the. purchasers to Cox cancled, and the
land to Frederick. Cox, who alone de-
tended, alone appeals.
The demurrer to the bill of review
ought to have been sustained 1t show
ed no right to relief as to Cox, the de-
murrant. 1t showed that sale had
been made under IL decree and con-
Hrmcd. anu Il deed made to the pur-
chaSers, Ash and Patton and that
they had sold and conveyed the land
to Cox; and 1 cannot see how a de-
cree could be made, not only reversing
the former DEGREES, but canceling both
the deed from Ash and Patton to Cox,
and restoring the land 10 Frederick by
writ of possession, thus taking away
from the purchasers and their vendee
all title, in the face of Code 1891, c. 1872,
section 8, saying: IF a sale OF prop
erty be made under decree or order
OF court. and such sale be confirmed.
though such n decree or order be af-
forwards reversed or set aside, the til
tie of the purchaser at such sale shall
not be affected thereby; but there may
be restitution of the proceeds OF sale
to those entitled" The purchasers
we're strangers to the cause. Most OF
the courts have held that an innocent
purchasers title does not fall with the
reversal of the decree of sale burt the
Virginia courts held otherwise; and
this section was put In its Code OF 1919
and In ours for the very purpose of
avoiding that rule, and of giving some
virtue and force to Il title acquired at
a judicial sale under solemn decree
of q court administering tho law Of the
land. so that such sale would not be
q mere baubIe. Every one having any
title or interest In the iand sold Mt the
date of It's sale was before the court,
ana the purchasers were innocent
strangers to It, There Is not a particle
OF evidence to sustain the bill of review
for; newly discovered evidence bearing
on the decree, even If there is any error
III Jaw, WHicn 90 not discern, ana 1t
is immaterial; but in either case the
purchasers title cannot be affected
We cannot look into the dispositions to
find error of law, bur. II we could. I
do not see any error. Even if we
treat the bill as original to affect the
decree of confirmation, the evidence is
utterly inadequate. lsut the bill is one
of review, and the title Of the purchas-
crs cannot be affected by n reversal
OF the decree of sale, however errone-
Gus. The reversal of the two DEGREES,
and the destruction of the title of Ash
and Patton and Cox under them Is err
rGneous. Besides. there could not be n
decree adverse to that title without
the purchasers as parties. Cox had
right to have them before the court.
The decree is reversed, and bill of re-
view dismissed.