The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-02-13

PENDANTS in the retirementeof the Lea,
Watkins 6, Co. note for the plaintiffs) less
what the plaintiffs We're entitled t" on
their original demand.
To this judgment write OF error was
awarded the plaintiffs, but the Supreme
Court held that 1.-The inability of the
plaintiffs to prove counter offsets CT cred
its against the defendants offset is no
ground for rejecting the Offset" Judg-
ment affirmed.
Statute nc linn tatio"s.
Coles executor VS. Martin From the Cir
cult Court OF pittsyivaa,ia county. Opinion
by Judge CaraweM.
This appeal is from the action of the
Circuit Curt in allowing to DIR. r. W
Martin certain medical accounts of long
standing, TO which the bar CO the statute
of limitations had been raised by the exc
cUtor Of Helen c. Coles. deceased. The
evidence showed that ali recent accounts
fer professional services had been paid as
soon as presented, and that these ac-
counts We're never presented during the
life OF the testatrix. 1t was attempted to
show from a letter written by the de-
ceased to the appellee requesting ms OH
and promising TO pay same, that she re
lfcrrcd to the old accounts which were out
OF date ard not to the current one; a4So
that by an item in hci. will making q spe-
intended to recognize the old accounts.
The Court of Appeals said: we arc OF
opinion that the decree Appealed from IN
50 far as it allowed the claim OF appellee
against the estate of the tcStatriX -of
sa27 as due to the firm CT c ana H. ".
Martin by account ending May l. 1881, ana
the claim Of appellee for 1.G2SSo as que up
on account with him ending March l. ieSe,
is erroneous and it will be reversed ana
cause remanded to Circuit Court with o.
rcctions to strike out these claims from the
amounts decreed appellee against inc es-
t!tc OF the deceased
!.uuify JUL Sdiciion.
Geo. w. Jones VS. w w Tunis- From
the Law and Chancery Court OF the city
of Norfolk. Opinion by Judge FhleSar-
This is an appeal from a decree OF NE
aforesaid court dismissing a bill MED py
the appellant against the appellee, TO
compel the specific performance o. an
alleged contract for the sale OF i!ltech
shares Of the capital stock OF the -NliaiI.'c
Saw NH Co, and TO recover allef "e-
cared dividends The evidence - col,-
Trajectory as to whether or not "a con-
ir3r. was made. This much, however, IS
certain: w. w Tuuis did not own III ms
individual right any of the stock, either
at the time Of the alleged contract or
at any time tlereafter.
The Court OF Appeals held that where
the plaintiff knew when ne Sucd '1i@t
sreCific performance was 1mposs1p!e' ~
recovery OF damages can be had Tor me
reason that a court of law can give MN
rs COMPLETE ana the same remedy that tile
court of equity can do: therefore, t!o
latter has no jurisdiction. and the pia:ntift
could not give 1t jurisdiction by asN1h5
for what he knew it could not give
IN such a case he should be lett TO MS
I, a and t'l3Il-
Gerry Court decided and it acton %
affirmed.
Hi"l hts Of Judgment Creditor
Pace VS.. Norman From Corporation
Court of Lynchburg. Opinion of ma
1ority by Judge Harrison, Judges Phie-
gar and Buchanan dissenting
In March, 1889. c. r. Moornl2n convey
ed an undivided moiety OF land to tie
INnchburg Land Company: this deed was
not recorded until October. 1870 soon
after the grantee conveyed Its purchase
to the West Lynchburs Land Company
who having become owner OF the ether
moietv, subdivided the whole. and in
May. 1891 conveyed one OF these sites 10
the Valley Engine and Machine Com
parry.
In JULY, 1891. c. w TalIey filed a me-
chanic's lien for 81, 2S5. -. being due him
for shops erected under a contract with
the latter company, and subsequently
brought suit to enforce his lien. At a
sale under Il decree in that suit the West
Lynchburg Land Company purchased it,
but before u deed was made. appellant
acquired the rights of the said company,
and the court appointed a commissioner
TO convey her the property, which was
done by deed recorded in March. 1895.
In March, 1887 NJ NJ. Moornan recov-
cred u judgment against c. r. Norman
and had same docketcd The deed from
c. r. Norman dated March, 1889. above
referred to. not being recorded, the jud@-
nent creditor brought this suit TO enforce
the lien of his judgment against certain
alterations of the undivided mOiety in
Guiding the manufacturing site derived
by appellant through The mechanics lien
suit
The right of the judgment creditor II
subject either the land in question or the
buildings thereon is denied, and is the
only question presented for decision.
The appellant is held to occupy the
same position as mechanic, and the Ques-
ton is the same as if the mechanic him
self had bought the property at the sale
and it was sought to subject the same in
his hands
The Supreme Court said: If the land in
question had not been sold by & r. Moor
man and the buildings had been erected
thereon under contract with him. this
aftcr-acquired lien could not. according
10 the letter and spirit of the statute
operate as a lien upon the land or bIild-
ings until the mechanics lien had been
satisfied II would seem that the iudg-
ment creditor, in case like this should
have no greater rights against the land
in the hands OF a, purchaser from his debt
or than he would have hal il the land
still belonged to his debtor
The decree appealed from is reversed.
and this court enters proper decree. dis
missing the bin with costs to appellee
Judge Ihicgar, dissenting. said: 1T
seems to :lfs TO be certain that the Legs
lature intended by the first clause of
section 24SS to limit the powe. of tie per-
son causing the building to be erected
10 his own interest i'll the mad. and that
he cannot cucumber what he does not
own absolutely II this be correct, the
land mentioned in the subsequent parts
of the statute is the interest Of the pe-so"
causing the building to be er5cted in thu
land on which it is erected. and only that
1yeIN neyr.r --rnsN