HAY v. ALEXANDRIA 4; w. iz. oo. 21
twenty-third of April, 1872. That company held a controlling inter-
est in the Alexandria & Fredericksburg Company from the time it
was organized. It also has held a controlling interest in the Balti-
more & Potomac Company, whose road extends from Baltimore to
Washington, and through Washington to the southern end of the
railroad bridge crossing the Potomac at Washington. The decree of
the circuit court of Alexandria county invalidating the proceedings in
the county court for the condemnation of the 18;--feet strip of land
which has been mentioned, was itself made the subject of an appeal
to the supreme court of appeals of Virginia, which latter court, on the
twenty·fourth of November, 1881, affirmed the decree of the circuit
court, and finally invalidated the title of the Alexandria & Freder-
icksburg Company to the strip of 185 feet of land in controversy; the
Alexandria & Fredericksburg Company having held this strip of land
for about nine years under color of title, and put improvements on
it, as has been stated, to the value of upwards of $70,000. The
statute law of Virginia provides on this subject, substantially, that,
where a jury shall be satisfied that a defendant against whom a decree
or judgment shall be rendered for land, made on the premises at a time
when there was reason to believe the title good under which he was
holding permanent and valuable improvements, they shall estimate
in his favor the value of such improvements as were so made before
notice in writing of the title under which the plaintiff claims, not ex-
ceeding the amount to which the value of the premises is actually
increased thereby at the time of the assessment. Code 1873, c. 432,
§§ 1, 4, p. 964. Other sections provide that rents for five years are
to be credited to the plaintiif, and for other adjustments.
It is not shown that either the Bradleys, or Lennox, or Kinzer, or
any of the beneficiaries of the deeds which they represent took any
part in resisting the condemnation of the strip of land which was taken
and improved by the Alexandria & Fredericksburg Company, or ever
gave “notice in writing" to that company of the liens which they held
on the Alexandria & Washington Railroad, or made objection, or gave
warning in any way against the construction of improvements upon
the property which was subject to their liens. It is physicallylcer-
tain, from the conspicuous site of the road in relation to the residences
of the trustees and a large portion of the benenciaries in the deeds,
that they must have had actual personal notice of these improvements
during all the stages of their progress. In November, 1857,_Kinzer,
the trustee heretofore mentioned, advertised the property of the Alex-
andria & -Washington Railroad Company for sale in accordance with
the terms of his deed; and, on the thirtieth of that month, the com-A
pany presented a bill to the judge of the circuit court of Alexandria
county, praying for an injunction against such sale, attacking the
validity of the debt named in the deed, and averring that it was sub- i
sequent in dignity to the Bradley deed securing the city of Washing-
ton. The Bradleys and city were made parties defendant, and so