Turnbull v. Mann
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Petersburg, rendered October 31, 1894, in a proceeding by motion under section 2498 of the Code in which the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant. This wa,s an application by John Mann, under section 2498 of the Code, to have released and discharged a deed of trust on real estate in the city of Petersburg, executed by a grantor under whom Mann claimed.
Read the full summary
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Petersburg, rendered October 31, 1894, in a proceeding by motion under section 2498 of the Code in which the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant. This wa,s an application by John Mann, under section 2498 of the Code, to have released and discharged a deed of trust on real estate in the city of Petersburg, executed by a grantor under whom Mann claimed. There was no proof of the actual payment of the debt secured, but the plaintiff relied upon the presumption of payment from the facts of the…
1Opinion of the Court
' Harrison, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
*183The court is of opinion that the purpose of section 2198 of the Code was to afford a summary remedy for having the liens mentioned therein marked satisfied, where that duty has been neglected or for any cause has not been performed, upon proof that the debt has been actually paid or discharged, and was not intended to enable persons to have such liens marked satisfied because liable to be defeated by presumption of payment, or because barred by the statute of limitations.
The judgment of the lower court must, therefore, be reversed, and the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wagner v. PetersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1925
- Turnbull v. MannSupreme Court of Virginia · 1900
- General Electric Credit Corporation v. LunsfordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1969
- General Electric Credit Corporation v. LunsfordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1969