The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-26

the bill is demurred to that the suit was
instituted within the period fixed by the
statute there is no good reason for re-
quiring the bill to allege that fact. since
the court will tako judicial notice OF
when the suit was instituted, as we'll as
of all other proceedings in the cause"
The other ground of demurrer Is that
the bills failed to allege that the COM
plainarts gave notice OF the amount and
character of their claims to Mahony, the
owner of the land, as required by section
2477 of the Code.
The court says: 'The bills do not allege
such notice; but the contention Of the
complainants. appellces here, is that they
were not sub-contractors. and therefore
no such notice was necessary.
1.-THE decision of this question depends
upon the construction of the contract be-
tween Mahony and Ryan. under which
the buildings on the lot were erected"
A contract was made between G. G..
Ryan. of Richmond, and d H Mahony,
of Philadelphia, by which Ryan agreed
to purchase a lot of land In the city of
Richmond from Mahony for $780, and to
build upon portion of the lot two
houses for Mahony, taking the lot (valued
at $500 and s., 42o In full payment Ryan
also agreed to build for himself three other
houses upon the lot.
Before the completion of the five houses,
Ryan borrowed $1,000 from Mahony, to
enable him to complete the work.
The commissioners directed to ascertain
and report the liens on the property
sought TO be subjected, and their priori-
ties. reported, amongst other things, that
there were no liens upon the two houses
which Mahony had selected and retained
under his agreement with Ryan; that
the first lien upon the three houses which
Mahony had conveyed to Ryan by deed
delivered In escrow was debt due Ma
hony from Ryan for money which Ma
hony had, in effect, furnished to enable
Ryan to complete the erection of the
houses; that the second liens were the
claims of the complainants and another
mechanics lien claimant, who had come
into the cause by petition to assert his
claim, and that Anderson one of the
appellants, to whom Ryan had conveyed
one of the three houses, took 1t subject
to those liens.
The court upholds the report OF the
commissioner, declaring 1t CLEARLY right"
and concluding. says:
I'VE are of opinion. therefore, thai, there
is no error in the decree appealed from
to the prejudice of the appellants, and
that it should be affirmed
Summary.
BY the Courti Woods Administrators
VS.. Southern Railway Company. Circuit
Court OF Amherst county. Upon petition
to rehear. Refused.
BY Judge John A. Buchanan: Selden's
Executor VS.. Kennedy. Court of Law
and Chancery of city of Norfolk. At
firmed.
Sands Trustee, etc. VS.. Stage ct ais.
CHANGER Court of city of Richmond.
Affirmed
BY Judge Stafford G. White: Johnson
VS.. Commonwealth. Circuit Court of
Henrico county. Reversed.
Selden. Substituted Trustee, VS.. Brooke.
Collector Court of Law and Chancery
OF city of Norfolk. Affirmed.
Petitions for Appeal, Etc.
Berkley Street Railway Company VS..
Simpson Circuit Court of Norfolk coun-
ty. Writ of error and supersedeas. Bond.
$1,000
Richardson VS. Ash ct ais Circuit
Court Of Gloucester county. Appeal and
supersedeas. Bond, 5000.
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
VS.. Carr. Circuit Court of Norfolk coun-
ty Writ of error and supersedeas. Bond
sl25o
Meyhr VS.. Dudley and Mason, Trustees.
Corporation Court of city Of Newport
News. Writ of error refused.