Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-13
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRc7NIAN-PILo
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
THOMAS V. JONES.


supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
June Ia. 1900.
EQUITY WILL RELIEVE AGAINST
a TAX DEED WHICH WAS OBJ
TANNED BY FRAUD. ACCIDENT
OR SURPRISE. IN SUCH CASE A
TAX DEED is NOT GOOD If THE
LAND WAS NOT ADVERTISED
AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
The points decided appear from the
opinion OF the court.
The court says:
we must enquire whether the deed
from the clerk to Thomas was pro
cured under such circumstances as
rendered 1t negotiable for Thomas to
avail himself of It, 1t is impossible to
read the deposition of the counsel for
Jones without being convinced that he
was lulled into false security by what
occurred between himself. the counsel
lot THOMAS, and the clerk of the court
we DO not believe that any fraud was
intended. and we do not impute Il. We
thlnk that counsel in their zeal to pro-
tect ana promote the interests of their
cllehts overstepped the bounds of pru-
oence and discretion. and that as a re-
suit of what they did Thomas acquired
an advantage in procuring the execu-
lion OF the deed under the circum-
stances disclosed. which it would be
6oou CunSCleIlcc 10 permit him
10 ENJOY. We do not rest this upon
the idea that it was competent for
counsel to enter into n contract which
would impose an obligation upon their
clients, nor that the clerk could by
contract disable himself duly TO per
form the functions of his office. but we
90 think that what occurred between
counsel naturally, indeed necessarily
induced the belief upon the part of
uounsel Tor Jones that the infirmity
~ t.a.l t. l..
10 the land was recognized as inSupera-
pie' that further prosecution of it
would be abandoned. and that redress
would be sought in suit for damages
against the sheriff ana his sureties.
II Is immaterial that an act was done
In good faith and without fraudulent
intent. If by 1t an advantage has been
obtained which 1t Is against good con-
science to enjoy "a court of equity will
relieve against it.
III. at the instant before the cxecu-
tion of the deed. Jones was~n n posi-
tion TO defeat the proceeding against
MN, then he is not to be Drcjudiced
by the fact that the deed was procur-
ca from him by methods which cannot
be sanctioned by "a court of equity.
turning then TO the statement Of
agreed facts. let us suppose that the
clerk had refused to execute the deed
when demanded. and that Thomas had
applied to this court for a mandamus
a
nad not been complied with. 1t cannot
be doubted that such an omission
would have been quite sufficient to
have justified. indeed to have demand
cd denial OF the writ
1t appears from the facts agreed that
in numerous particulars the law regu-
lating the sales of lands returned de-
linquent for non-payment of taxes was
wholly disregarded. the most material
omission perhaps being the failure to
advertise as required by section G37
If the clerk had furnished copies of the
list of delinquent ands as corrected
by the court and caused them to be
posted at the front door of the court
house. and printed copies thereof to
be posted at five public places in the
district in which the land lies, appellee
might have received notice, which
would have enabled him to protect
himself against loss.
AS we have seen, appellant cannot
be permitted TO rely upon the deed ex-
ecuted to him by the clerk to cure de-
fects which may exist in the course
of the proceeding under which he
claims. The burden was upon him to
show compliance with the law, and
the undisputed facts IN this record are
conclusive against him When he is de-
prived of the advantage enjoyed by
virtue of the deed.
We are OF opinion that the decree of
the Circuit Court must be affirmed.