76 Va. 766 | Va. | 1882
delivered the opinion of the court.
The case is this: John B. Johnson filed his bill in the circuit court of Clarke county against Thomas H. Anderson, a non-resident of the State, to attach a tract of land as his to pay the balance alleged to be due on his promissory note. Anderson not appearing, a decree was pronounced
At the hearing of the cause, the court dismissed the supplemental bill on the demurrer, and the original bill on the plea of the act of .limitations. •
On appeal allowed Johnson from this decree, the three principal questions presented by the assignments of error are:
1. Whether the Ohio decree is valid.
2. If valid, is it a merger of the cause of action on the note?
Tbe last two questions, of course, need not be considered if, on considering tbe first, it be determined that tbe decree is void.
Tbe transcript of tbe Ohio record being specifically referred to in tbe supplemental bill and exhibited with it, is as much a part of tbe bill as if incorporated in hcec verba, and therefore on demurrer we may look to it to see whether tbe decree it presents is valid or not.
It appears by tbe statements of tbe bill, admitted by tbe demurrer to be true, that tbe note in question was one of two notes, each for tbe same amount, given for tbe purchase money of two lots of land bought by Anderson of Johnson and secured by mortgage on tbe lots, and that, default being made, Johnson instituted tbe proceedings (tbe transcript of which we have) to foreclose tbe mortgage.
Tbe transcript shows a petition filed for tbe foreclosure, process to answer awarded, personal service on Anderson and return, order of sale, sale made (Johnson being tbe purchaser), report of sale returned and confirmed, conveyance to tbe purchaser ordered and costs paid. All of these proceedings thus far appear to be regular, and their validity is not questioned. Tbe last decree, so far as tbe proceedings have been noticed, was rendered on tbe 22d day of June, 1868. Twelve years afterwards—to-wit: on tbe 3d day of July, 1880—another decree was rendered, by which a portion of tbe purchase money under tbe sale previously made was applied to the extinction of tbe first note and tbe residue credited on tbe second (tbe note in controversy in this suit), leaving a balance due on tbe latter, which Anderson was adjudged to pay.
This is tbe decree relied on by tbe appellant; and we we are of opinion that it is void because tbe court bad no jurisdiction to render it. Tbe decree of June 22,1868, was
The decree of the circuit court will be affirmed.
Decree affirmed.