Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1903-02-07
OPINION IN THE DOwNEY CASE.

OflNlON In lnE DOW NE1 CASE.
AS stated in Thursdays Gazette, the
decision of the Corporation Court of this
city in the Downey case was affirmed
that day by the Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Judge George NJ. Harrison
delivering the opinion. Messrs. j. R. &
H. B. Cation represented Mr.. Downey
and Mr.. j. NJ. Johnson Strouse & Co.
The following is the full text of the deci-
sion
II appears from the record that Thomas
Downey died in January 1887, seized of
certain real estate in the city of Alex
andria, which, by his last will and tes-
lament. he devised to his wife, Mary
Downey for life or widowhood, with re-
mainder over to nine OF his children.
The widow, the life tenant, died in De-
cember 1889, and soon thereafter this
suit was brought by creditor of Thomas
d. Downey, one of the nine remainder
men, to subject his interest in the real
estate left by the ancestor to the salts
faction of a judgment lien. The re-
maindermen filed answers uniting in the
! prayer of the bill that the real estate be
partitioned, and if not susceptible Of
division in kind that it be sold and the
proceeds divided. John T. Downey,
the appellant, asks that his answer may
be treated as cross-bill, in which,
among other things, he sets up claim
of 81, 307. 30, for city taxes paid by him
upon the real estate for the years 1889 :
to 1896, inclusive, and prays that there
may be decree for the payment Of such
taxes out Of the proceeds of the real es-
tate. The co-remaindermen of the ap-
pelant answer this cross-bill, and deny
that the real estate is liable for these taxes.
They aver that the taxes were due by
the life tenant, the same having accrued
during her life time, and that the pay
ments alleged to have been made by the
appellant were made for the use and
benefit of the life tenant and not at the
request of the remaindermen. From
decree denying the right of appellant to
be subrogated to the lien of the city,
and to have satisfaction for his claim
from the real estate when sold, the case
is now before this court.
1t appears that the appellant, who
was one of the remaindermen and son
of the life tenant, occupied during the
entire period of the life estate, as renter
from his mother, valuable part of the
real estate, in question, for which he
agreed to pay sum that would have
been more than sufficient to pay the
taxes accruing each year on all the
property, and that in addition he re-
ceived rent to the amount of S3l0.70
due to his mother from another tenant
of part of said real estate. 1t further
appears that the appellant furnished his
mother from his store, supplies of
groceries and other articles amounting
to more than the rent due from him.
This credit appears to have been volun-
tarily extended the life tenant by the
appellant on his individual account and
/ without any understanding with APP
peIlees that they were to contribute in any
way to reimburse the appellant for
I, such outlays. The position of APP
pellant is that he credited the
rents upon his individual account
against his mother and paid the
q taxes for which he now claims a
lien out of his own means The effect
of this would be to make his co-remain-
dermen contribute to such bounty as he
y chose to bestow upon his mother. The
? life tenant vas in the full possession and
enjoyment of the entire property, and
upon her rested the duty and obligation
to pay the taxes thereon as they accrued.
o The payments made by the appellant
. we're at her request and for her benefit,
and not at the request of or for the bene-
fit of appellees. Conceding that the APP
o pellees knew that appellant was paying
the taxes they lad the right to presume
q that he was paying them for the benefit
i of the life tenant, and that he was look
! ing to her for reimbursement out of the
+ rents and profits, which were passing
through his hands to an extent more than
sufficient to satisfy the taxes. They had
/ no reason to suspect that appellant was
deyoting the rents to his individual bene-
fit, and holding the taxes outstanding
q against them. The law makes taxes a
= lien on rents, and the appellees had a
r right to rely on this lien, and if neces-
v sary to have taken steps to enforce the
= same, and thereby protect their property
!. against the large claim now asserted as a
. lien uponit. Theappellant by his course
of dealing with his mother has lulled ap-
. pellees into false security, and deprived
= them of the opportunity to protect their
rights. Even il the taxes, in question,
q were lien upon the estate Of the remain
= derman, as to which we express no opin-
ion, appellant is not entitled to the relief
4 sought in this case. To hold that he was
- entitled to such relief, would be to de-
q. prive appellees of their rights, under the
= lien upon the rents, during the life ten
= ancy; and to enable appellant to work
"a upon them an irreparable wrong by de-
- handing, at this late day, reimburse
9 ment for benefactions bestowed upon his
mother during her life time.
In this view of the case it is unneces-
sary to consider other questions suggested
in argument.
NJ For these reasons the decree appealed
= from must be affirmed.
----Du---------