The Sunday telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1914-1927, 1915-03-14
COURT
DECIDES D { D A FEW
APPEAL CASES.
And a Number of Petitions are
Acted upon by That Trib-
unal This Week.

AiI0l AZ lsllto WIEN. $l
CHARLESTON, Mar. la-Decisions
were handed down this week by the
West Virginia Supreme Court oil APP
peals as follows:
Mullins ct al. Us. Laurel Coal
and Land Company.
Boonec county: affirmed; by Judge
Robinson, prcsident-A case Identical
with and controlled by the decision
IN farrell VS.. Laurel Coal and Land
Company. WV. Va.
State VS.. Hicks ct al.
Mcdowell county: affirmed; by
Judge Williams claimant. not
made party 10 the states bill In
school commissioners proceeding 10
sell forfeited land. who files his pet.-
ton therein, as provided by Sec 6.
chapter los, code 1913. it is not re-:
quired TO make other claimants par
ties to his petition. SLch petition may
be hled in8court, AT rules, or before
the commissioner to whom the cause
is referred and no process need issue
thereon
a defendant, named In the billsin
such proceeding, who is duly served
with process and fails 10 appear, IS
bound by the final decree therein
and can not have it set aside at n
subsequent term. except for such err
rors. apparent upon the record. as
would justify reversal upon appeal
forfeiture OF some claimants title
to land, whether good or bad title
When the forfeiture occurred. confers
Jurisdiction to entertain a suit by
the commissioner of school lands, and
questions between conflicting claim
ants, relative to the forfeited land,
without cross pleadings between them.
Graham Grocery Go. ct ais. vs..
Chase ct als.
Mcdowell county; affirmed; by
Judge Poffenbarger-The co-dsbtors
OF one of two or more joint debtors,
who has made a fraudulent convey
ance, are not necessary parties to a
suit by creditors to avoid it.
In a suit by subsequent creditors to
set aside a deed made by their debt
or, without consideration deemed val
liable in law and with intent to hind
er, delay and defraud his creditors,
brought within five years from the
date Of the deed, it sufices TO prove
fraudulent intent on the part Of the
grantor alone Proof OF knowledge
thereof by the grantee is not requir-
ed.
A mere volunteer participates in
the fraud OF the grantor, by his ac-
ceptance of conveyance made with
intent on the part Of the latter to- de-
fraud his creditors, or by his reten-
ton of the benefit thereof after mo-
uce Of the intent with which it was
made.
Intent to defraud existing creditors
in the execution of voluntary con-
veyance, vitiates 1T as to subsequent
creditors.
A husbands disposition of practic-
ally all Of his property, Within per-
iod Of about two years, by voluntary
conveyance to his wife. while owing
some debts and contracting others, is
fraudulent.
Calabrla, ct al. VS.. Cohen. ct al.
Monongalia county; decree reyers-
cd and bill dismissed; by Judge Mill
ler-Properly construed section II, of
chapter 81, Serial section 1915. code
1913, does not require the purchaser
at a tax. sale Of an undivided inter
est in a city. town or village lot, as
condition precedent to obtaining from
the clerk OF the county court a valid
deed for such interest, to have such
interest therein or the whole lot, sur
veyed and plat thereof made by and
returned with the report of the sur
veyor, and recorded along with the
deed In such cases report by the
surveyor showing and specifying the
metes and bounds Of the whole lot,
for the purpose OF description, made
and recorded along with the. deed OF
the purchased will constitute substan-
tial compliance with the statute
l,Building 4 Loan Association vs.. Sohn,
"a w. Va. l01, point 8 OF the syllabus
modified and distinguished.
The fact that valuable improve
ments have been placed upon such
and the deed TO the purchaser, by
purchasers from the former owner.
ignorant Of such tax sale, will not be
ground for inyalidating the tax deed
for such undivided interest. All ques-
lions respecting such improvements
are properly addressed to the court in
suit for partition or settlement be-
tween the co-owners OF such lot
Supreme Court Petitions.
The following petitions we're acted
upon:
Garter vs. Boyles. ct ais, Mercer
county. Appeal refused.
Brown, trustee, VS.. Turk, Mercer
county. appeal refused.
Summers ys. Parkersburg Mill Com
pany, Gilmer county. Appeal allow
ed. bond S300:0 90.
Houseman vs. Flat Top Insurance
Agency, Mcdowell county. Writ. Of
error refused.
The William James Sons Company
ct ais. vs.. Farley ct ais, Summers
county. Appeal refused
Watts VS.. Ohio Valley Electric Com
ispany, Cabell county. Writ OF, error
and supersedeas awarded. Bond $4,-
10000.
4.
4. HUMOROUS COMMENT. j.
4. -----=------=5 I.
E. A ro....