Lancaster v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 26 July 1876
• Citation: 68 Va. 624
• Parties: LANCASTER v. WILSON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

68 Va. 624

LANCASTER v. WILSON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

July 26, 1876

1. J and C brought an action at law against W in the county court of W, and sued out an attachment, which was served on certain real estate of W. Plaintiffs having recovered a judgment, the court made an order directing the sheriff to sell the real estate attached, and the sheriff having sold to L, the court made an order appointing a commissioner to convey the real estate to L, which was done. In ejectment by W against L to recover the said real estate-- HELD: The county court being then a court of general jurisdiction, no irregularities or errors in its proceedings can be inquired into in this case but they are conclusive upon the rights of the parties to the property. ^[a1]

2. A judgment of a court of record cannot be impeached in another action, except for want of jurisdiction in the court, or fraud in the parties or actors in it.

This was an action of ejectment in the circuit court of Washington county, brought by A. T. Wilson against Thomas C. Lancaster. On the trial of the case the jury found a special verdict upon which the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. And thereupon Lancaster applied to a judge of this court for a writ of error and supersedeas; which was awarded. The case is stated by Judge Christian in his opinion.

Gilmore and D. Trigg, for the appellant.

York, for the appellee.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

This case is before us upon a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Washington county. The action was ejectment brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, for the recovery of certain lots in the town of Goodson.

The jury to which the case was submitted, at the May term 1874, found a special verdict. That verdict found that the plaintiff had title to the land in controversy until a sale made in the case of Johnston & Campbell v. the plaintiff Wilson. The verdict (after setting forth the fact, that the original papers in the case of Johnston & Campbell v. Wilson had been destroyed,) finds certain matters of record taken from the execution books and minute books of the county court, as follows: Record of a judgment by default at March term 1861, in favor of Johnston & Campbell v. Wilson for $40, with interest from 17th April 1860 till paid; costs $8.24; fi. fa. satisfied, and money paid plaintiffs. See reports and order of sale May.

Also an order entered upon the minute book of said county court, dated June 25th, 1861, which after reciting the judgment above referred to, and the issuance of an attachment, and the levy of the same on the lots in controversy, and the fact that the plaintiffs had executed bond with security as required by law, directs the sheriff of said county to make sales of so much or so many of the lots of the defendants so attached as will be sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs of plaintiffs, and that the same be sold for cash.

The special verdict further finds that the following orders were entered in said attachment suit, to wit:

" No. 3." --FROM MINUTE BOOK, APRIL 28, 1862.

Johnston & Campbell, plt's )

v. ) On an attachment.

A. T. Wilson, defendant. )

William King Heiskell, sheriff of this county, having returned, upon the order of sale issued in this cause, that he had sold the property therein named to Thomas C. Lancaster for the sum of $615, it is ordered that the said Heiskell, sheriff of this _______ as aforesaid, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the said Lancaster a deed with special warranty, conveying to him the lots in the said order of sale, and other proceedings in the cause mentioned.

No. 4.--FROM MINUTE BOOK, MARCH 2, 1866.

Johnston & Campbell )

v. ) On debt.

A. T. Wilson. )

By an order heretofore made in this case, William K. Heiskell, sheriff of the county, was directed to sell ______ lot in Goodson, the property of the defendant, and in obedience to said order he sold the same, as will appear by his report filed, and Thomas C. Lancaster became a purchaser at the sum of $615. It is therefore ordered that James C. Campbell be and he is hereby appointed a commissioner to convey said lots to the purchaser, Lancaster, with special warranty.

The special verdict also sets out in hæ c verba the deed executed by James C. Campbell to Lancaster, the purchaser, in accordance with this last named order; and concludes as follows:

" If the said proceedings and conveyance pass the title of the plaintiff to defendant, to the property in controversy, it being admitted that the property conveyed by commissioner Campbell to defendant is the property in controversy, then we find for the defendant; if they do not pass the title of plaintiff to defendant, then we find for the plaintiff the premises in question; and we find for the plaintiff $368.75 for mesne profits of the property from the _____ day of March, 1868, to the institution of this suit, being five years lacking one month."

Upon this special verdict the circuit court of Washington entered a judgment for the plaintiff; and to this judgment a writ of error was awarded by this court.

The court is of opinion that the circuit court erred in rendering a judgment for the plaintiff, and that upon this special verdict the judgment ought to have been rendered in favor of the defendant.

While the papers in the attachment suit had been destroyed, the orders and judgments taken from the execution book and minute book of the county court, show, conclusively, that in the suit of Johnston & Campbell v. Wilson, an attachment had issued, and was levied upon the lots in controversy, and that a sale was made by the sheriff; that that sale was approved by the court; that at that sale Lancaster became the purchaser, and that a deed was directed to be executed and delivered to him by a special commissioner of the court, conveying to him the lots thus levied upon and sold by the sheriff.

Now it is conceded that the county courts of the commonwealth, at the time this suit was brought, were invested by law with general jurisdiction in cases of attachment. Every presumption must be made in favor of the correctness of the proceedings set forth in that verdict; and in the absence of anything in the record to show the contrary, the court will presume that proper process in a proper case was issued and served upon the defendant, and that he was properly before the court when these several orders were entered in the said attachment suit. We must treat the case...