’ nn v. ALEXANDRIA er w. B. co. 23
Francis L. Smith and Wayne McVeigh, for the Alexandria dz Fred-
ericksburg Company. .
O. A. Cicughtcn, for Fowle, Snowden & Co. ·
Huenns, J. The task of the court is to pass upon the relative pri-
orities ofthe several deeds and judgments resting as liens upon the
property of the Alexandria & Washington Railroad Company, and as-
certain the rights with reference to these liens of the Alexandria &
Fredericksburg Railroad Company in respect to its claim for better-
ments. The priority of the lien of the Bradley deed over the Kinzer
deed is rcs judicata as betweemthe two; and, as the former deed an-
tedates all other liens by deed or judgment upon the property of the
company, it must have precedence over them all, unless there be
something in the objection, that the guarantee of the city of Washing-
ton to the holders of the bonds of the railroad company was ultra
wires, as being in conflict with the tenth section of the city charter of
1848. On this subject it may be remarked that there has been a
direct adjudication by the court of highest resort in Virginia, where
the property embraced in this deed lies, that notwithstanding this oh-
jection, the Bradley deed is a lien upon the property of the Alexan-
dria & Washington Company as of the twenty-third of July, 1857.
It is true that this decree does not, in a technical sense, conclude
those who were not parties to the suit in which it was rendered; but
it carries all the authority of a decision of the highest court of the
state in which the land affected by it lies, upon a question directly
raised before it. Independently of these considerations, it may be
added that the mortgage secured the bonds and created a valid lien
on the property. When the city took up these bonds this lien was
not vacated. The cancellation of the city’s signature on the bonds
did not cancel the liability of the railroad company for their pay-
ment. The city might have contested her liability on the bonds, but
the subsequent lienholders are in no condition to contest the title of -
the city to the bonds. It is a matter of no importance to them,
whether the city gets the money, or some oneelse. The debt is still
owing by the company, and the lien for its security is a valid one.
So, the conclusion of the court is, that the Bradley deed is a first lien
by deed or j_udgment upon the property of the Alexandria & Wash-
ington Company, dating as of the twenty·third of July, 1857, for the
debt it secures, as reported by Commissioner Fowler.
The Lennox deed is really not disputed, and having been recorded
on the twenty-fourth of July, 1857, antedates and ranks all deeds
and judgments, except the Bradley deed. It is true that Lennox, the
trustee, had personal notice of the execution; but this notice to him
cannot bind the bondholders whom he represents, who took the bonds
without notice. For all purposes of notice, the trust deed must, in
this case, be treated as executed to the bondholders.
The Hayjudgments and the claim of Fowle, Snowden & Co., as this
Ylatter is represented by the Kinzer deed, and by the decree of the cir-