Young v. Young

• Decision Date: 21 April 1893
• Citation: 89 Va. 675,17 S.E. 470
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. YOUNG et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

17 S.E. 470

89 Va. 675

YOUNG et al.

v.YOUNG et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 21, 1893.

Contingent Remainders—Attachment—Conveyance.

1. A contingent remainder is not within Code 1873, c. 148, § 1, allowing an attachment against "estates or debts" in certain instances.

2. A contingent remainder may be conveyed, under Code, § 2418, as an "interest or claim" to real estate.

Appeal from corporation court of Norfolk.

Suit by Robert W. Young, Jr., and others, against N. P. Young and others, for partition, etc. There was a decree sustaining the validity of certain liens on the property, from which this appeal is taken. Reversed.

Watts & Hatten and J. Johns, for appellants.

J. F. Crocker, for appellees.

HINTON, J. By his will, which was probated in February, 1836, one Tapley Webb, of the city of Portsmouth, devised the two lots of land, with the buildings thereon, in the proceedings mentioned, to his daughter Ann Porter Young, for life, with remainders in fee to such of her issue as might be living at her death. On the 5th day of November, 1884, Mrs. Young died, leaving the following issue: Robert W. Young, Jr., Tapley W. Young, Anna Virginia d'Abbadie, and Nathaniel F. Young; and upon her death the remainders, which had theretofore been contingent, became vested. In June, 1886, this suit was instituted. In their bill the plaintiffs, who are the above-named remaindermen, ask for a partition of the property, which they allege is free from incumbrance, although they say that they are informed that the Interest of Robert W. Young, Jr., is claimed to be affected and charged with a judgment recovered against him at the April term, 1874, of the hustings court of Portsmouth, in an action brought by his uncle N. P. Young, but that said judgment is void, the said court having had no jurisdiction to render it; and that the interest of said Tap-ley W. Young is claimed to be affected and charged with a deed of trust made by said Tapley W. Young to R. V. Boykin, trustee, in whose place and stead R. C. Marshall has been substituted, but the said deed of trust constitutes no charge upon the said interest of said Tapley W. Young, and is of no effect. And, after making some other allegations not material to these proceedings, the bill prays that N. P. Young, Nathaniel F. Young, and R. C. Marshall, trustee, be made defendants, and required to answer the same. That partition be made of the said real estate, or that the same be sold, and the proceeds divided. And that the cause be referred to one of the commissioners of the court to take and report, among others, the following accounts: (1) An account of all liens and charges against the interest of said Tapley W. Young, and the priorities thereof; (2) an account of al! liens and charges against the interest of Robert W. Young, Jr., and the priorities thereof. That a decree be entered determining the validity and priority of all liens existing, or claimed to exist, against the said property, or the interest of either party therein, and that an injunction be awarded, restraining said R. C. Marshall, trustee, and N. P. Young, from making any sale under said deed of trust. The commissioner reported that the judgment constituted no lien or charge on the interest of R. W. Young, Jr., and that the deed oF trust executed by T. W. Young to R. V. Boykin, trustee, dated the 3d of February, 1858. was a valid lien on the one-fourth interest of T. W. Young in said property....