Camden v. Alkire.

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtSnyder.
Citation24 W.Va. 674
Decision Date27 September 1884
PartiesCamden v. Alkire.

24 W.Va. 674

Camden
v.
Alkire.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June 26, 1884
Decided September 27, 1884.


[24 W.Va. 674]

The right to enforce the lien of a trust-deed against the trust-property being an equitable and not a legal remedy, the statute of limitations has no direct operation upon such right; but the general rule adopted by courts of equity as to the limit for the enforcement of such lien is by analogy to the right of entry at law under the old statute of limitations 21 Jac. 1, c. 15 that twenty years7 possession by the grantor after default of payment of the trust-debt by the terms of the deed, without any acknowledgment or recognition of a subsisting lien, is a bar, unless the beneficiary is within some of the exceptions made for disabilities, (p. 677.)

[24 W.Va. 675]

2. In some of the States, in which the limitation of the right of entry on land has been fixed at a period longer or shorter than twenty years, courts of equity in those States, following the analogy of those statutes, have made the time within which the lien of a mortgage or trust-deed will be enforced the same. But in this State this rule is not followed, and the period of twenty years has been adhered to, notwithstanding the time fixed by our statute for the entry on land has been made less than twenty years, (p. 677.)

3. The presumption of payment which arises from the non-enforcement of the trust-deed for twenty yesrs, is not adopted as a fixed and positive limitation, but as an equitable rule and by analogy to the old statute of limitations; and it may, therefore, be varied, and made to operate at a longer or shorter period, depending upon circumstances and the relations of the parties, (p. 679.)

4. A purchaser from the grantor, as well as all subsequent vendees, where the trust-deed is duly recorded, has no greater rights against the creditor than the grantor himself, and the title and possession of the one are no greater than the other. The purchaser from the grantor is bound by the acts and declarations of the grantor in respect to the trust while he retains the equity of redemption or any part of it. (p. 679.)

5. The fact that the debt secured by the deed is barred by the statute of limitations does not as a general rule extinguish the security or prevent the enforcement of the lien by suit. (p. 680.)

6. In equity the trust-deed is always regarded merely as a security for the debt and the debt as the principal thing; therefore, so long as a recovery at law on the bond or note given for the debt is not barred by the statute of limitations, the right to enforce the lien of the trust continues and may be enforced, (p. 680.)

7. A trust-deed made to secure a debt is in legal effect a mortgage and is governed by the same legal principles as to the rights growing out of it in regard to the lapse of time as well as in many other respects, (p. 680.)

The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court.

W. E. Lively for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Snyder, Judge:

Oliver Alkire executed to R. P. Camden his bond for seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty cents dated February 4, 1858, payable one year thereafter, and at the same

[24 W.Va. 676]

date he executed a trust-deed by which he conveyed to J. N Camden, trustee, a tract ot one hundred and thirty-five acre ot land in Lewis county to secure the payment of said debt which deed was duly recorded in said county on the day of it ' date. Subsequently, by deed dated July 5, 1858, he sold and conveyed said tract of land to G. J. Butcher, and as n j part of the consideration for said sale and conveyance, Butche agreed and bound himself to pay oft said trust-debt to R. P. Camden. In 1866, Butcher, by an executory contract o title-bond sold and bound himself to convey said tract ol land to Alexander A. Brown. A short time thereafter, in the early part of 1867, Brown was put in the actual posses sion of the land and has so continued ever since. Brown paid all the purchase-money for theland to Butcher at the time or soon after his said purchase, but the land was no; conveyed to him until August 25, 1878, when Butcher and wife conveyed the same to him by deed with general warranty of title.

In pursuance of his said agreement with Alkire, on the 4th day of May, 1869, Butcher paid to R. P. Camden on said debt nine hundred and ninety-six dollars and sixty-one cents, and on June 26, 1877, Flora Camden, the administratrix of R. P. Camden, then deceased, brought an action of debt in the county court of Lewis county against Oliver Alkire for the residue of said debt, in which action judgment was rendered on February 26, 1880, in favor of the plaintiff lor four hundred and seventy-four dollars and four cents by the circuit court of said county to which court said action had been removed. Execution issued on this judgment and was returned "no property found."

In August, 1877, Butcher died insolvent and J. N. Camden, the trustee, having declined to execute the trust imposed t by the aforesaid trust-deed to him, the said Flora Camden, as administratrix of R. P. Camden, deceased, on May 15, 1880, brought this suit in the circuit court ot Lewis county against said Alkire, Brown, J. E". Camden, trustee, and the administratrix and heirs of said Butcher for the purpose of enforcing said trust-deed by a sale of said tract of one hundred and thirty-five acres of land in default of the payment of the unpaid balance of the said trust-debt. The

[24 W.Va. 677]

defendant Brown answered, insisting that the plaintiff and her testator by laches and the lapse of time had lost their right to enforce said trust-deed or to subject said land to the payment of said debt; and he pleaded and relied on the statute of limitations, the presumption of payment and the staleness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...re Hartranft's Estate, 153 Pa. 530, 26 Atl. 104, 34 Am. St. Rep. 717;U. S. v. Trust Co., 213 Pa. 411, 62 Atl. 1062; Camden v. Alkire, 24 W. Va. 674; Foot v. Burr, 41 Colo. 192, 92 Pac. 236, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1210. But in this state, in Arkansas, by a recent statute, in California, in Idah......
  • G. T. Fogle & Co v. King, No. 9967.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1948
    ...the note for the amount thereof." Pt. 3 Syllabus, Emmons v. Hawk, 62 W.Va. 526, 59 S.E. 519. Also, see Pt. 5 Syllabus, Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674. So the instant case is distinguishable from the last three cases, cited by counsel for plaintiff, on the ground that the statute of limitati......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...Hartranft's Estate, 153 Pa. 530 (26 A. 104, 34 Am. St. Rep. 717); United States v. Trust Co., 213 Pa. 411 (62 A. 1062); Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674; Foot v. Burr, 41 Colo. 192 (92 P. 236, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1210). But in this state, in Arkansas, by a recent statute, in California, in Id......
  • Fogle v. King, (No. 9967)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1948
    ...the note for the amount thereof." Pt. 3 Syllabus, Emmons v. Hawk, 62 W.Va. 526, 59 S. E. 519. Also, see Pt. 5 Syllabus, Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674. So the instant case is distinguishable from the last three cases, cited by counsel for plaintiff, on the ground that the statute of limitat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1912
    ...re Hartranft's Estate, 153 Pa. 530, 26 Atl. 104, 34 Am. St. Rep. 717;U. S. v. Trust Co., 213 Pa. 411, 62 Atl. 1062; Camden v. Alkire, 24 W. Va. 674; Foot v. Burr, 41 Colo. 192, 92 Pac. 236, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1210. But in this state, in Arkansas, by a recent statute, in California, in Idah......
  • G. T. Fogle & Co v. King, No. 9967.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1948
    ...the note for the amount thereof." Pt. 3 Syllabus, Emmons v. Hawk, 62 W.Va. 526, 59 S.E. 519. Also, see Pt. 5 Syllabus, Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674. So the instant case is distinguishable from the last three cases, cited by counsel for plaintiff, on the ground that the statute of limitati......
  • Ed. Fitzgerald v. Flanagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1912
    ...Hartranft's Estate, 153 Pa. 530 (26 A. 104, 34 Am. St. Rep. 717); United States v. Trust Co., 213 Pa. 411 (62 A. 1062); Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674; Foot v. Burr, 41 Colo. 192 (92 P. 236, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1210). But in this state, in Arkansas, by a recent statute, in California, in Id......
  • Fogle v. King, (No. 9967)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1948
    ...the note for the amount thereof." Pt. 3 Syllabus, Emmons v. Hawk, 62 W.Va. 526, 59 S. E. 519. Also, see Pt. 5 Syllabus, Camden v. Alkire, 24 W.Va. 674. So the instant case is distinguishable from the last three cases, cited by counsel for plaintiff, on the ground that the statute of limitat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT