Washington, O. & W. R. R. v. Cazenove

Citations

• 83 Va. 744
• 3 S.E. 433
• 1887 Va. LEXIS 118

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads&emdash;County subscriptions&emdash;Indemnity,&emdash;Company receives of county its subscription bonds on conditions, to perform which company gives bond, secured by mortgage. Conditions being broken, the interest coupons held by purchaser for value without notice remain unpaid.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Company became principal debtor, county the surety, and coupon-holder entitled to be substituted to the benefit of the mortgage.</p> <p>2. Idem&emdash;Property&emdash;Sale&emdash;Purchaser&emdash;Validity of bonds.&emdash;Purchaser of mortgaged property under decree for sale, subject to the lien of the mortgage, cannot contest the validity of the county bonds and thus relieve the property of said lien.</p> <p>3. Idem&emdash;Res judicata.&emdash;In suit whereto county issuing the bonds and company executing the mortgage are parties, it was decreed that the bonds were valid and the mortgage the first lien, and the decree was,, on appeal, affirmed.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Those questions are res judicata.</p> <p>4. Idem&emdash;Case at bar.&emdash;In such suit the county, by its cross-bill, admits. the validity of certain of its bonds, but asks to be relieved from paying same except, as against purchasers for value without notice, because of the failure of the conditions of their issuance, and on demurrer the-cross bill is dismissed for want of equity; such dismissal is, as between the same parties, res judicata.</p> <p>5. Idem&emdash;Case at bar&emdash;Ogden v. Brown.&emdash;Where the court in whose custody the bonds were appointed commissioners to audit them in this suit, and they were so audited and reported in their names&emdash;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>It was not error to decree sale of the mortgaged property before ascertaining the ownership of the bonds, as to which there was no controversy; the case here being distinguishable from that of Ogden v. Brown, ante, p. 670.</p>