Case Name: Harris v. Harris
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1819-04-07
Citations: 6 Munf. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harris v. Harris.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 773–773

Head Matter:
Harris v. Harris.
Decided, April 7th, 1819.
i. Deed of Trust — Title of Trustee. — The ad point in the case oi Taylor v. Kins, again decided.
At the trial of this cause, (which was an Ejectment by Thomas H. Harris against Thomas Harris, in the Superior Court of Henrico County,) the plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed of trust from Thomas Harris and wife to Andrew Stevenson, dated the 2d of February 1809, and recorded the 6th of the same month; also a deed of bargain and sale executed by the said trustee to Thomas H. Harris, dated June 30th, and recorded July 2d, 1810; whereupon the Counsel for the defendant moved the Court to instruct the Jury that the legal title to the land in controversy, did not pass from the trustee to the purchaser, (the lessor of the plaintiff,) who was also the creditor, by the said last mentioned deed, unless the lessor of the plaintiff would prove that the trustee had complied with the terms prescribed by the Trust Deed, as to the advertising, sale and conveyance of the said land; which instruction the Court did give to the Jury; and thereupon the plaintiff excepted; setting forth all the deeds in haec verba. Verdict and judgment for *the defendant; from which the lessor of the plaintiff appealed.
Bacchus and Wickham for the appellant.
Leigh for the appellee.
Deed of Trust- Title of Trustee, — See foot-note to Taylor v. King, 6 Munf. 358. where the cases citing the principal case are collected. The principal case is cited on the subject in Pollard v. Baylor, 6 Muni, 435; Powna.lv. Taylor. 10 Heigh ¡83; Morman v. Hill, 2 Pat. &H. 681; Sulphur Mines Co. v. Thompson, 93 Va. 316. 25 S. E. Liep. 232; Pulton v. Johnson, 24 W. "V a. 114.
Same — Sale by Trustee — Setting Aside. — See foot-note to Taylor v. King. 6 Munf. 358. The principal case was cited on this subject in Morriss v. Virginia Slate Ins. Co., 90 Va. 375. 18 S. E.-Rep. 843.
Deeds- Fraud — When It Can Be Taken Advantage of - See foot-note to Taylor v. King. 6 Munf. 358. On this subject the principal case is cited in underwood V. McVeigh, 23 (trait, 426.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROAJSTE
pronounced the Court's opinion, as follows:
For some of the reasons assigned in the case of Taylor v. King, the Court is of opinion that the instruction of the Superior Court is erroneous in this, that it did not admit that the legal title to the land in controversy passed by the Deed in the exception mentioned, unless the lessor of the plaintiff would prove that the terms prescribed by the Trust Deed had been complied with. The Judgment is therefore reversed with costs, and a new trial awarded, in which, if requested, a contrary instruction is to be given.