7.



the facts and ratifying the deed already made to Mary C. East, ane
directing the church trustees to exenute to her a new deed.   I
have prepared the mrinutes for such a congregational meeting, and
a new deed, and will underl;ake to have the meeting arrnnged for
Sunday, August lst, the earliest date the sa-me can be called for,
and have the deed of ratification executed on August Zd by tne t
trustees.

     In the deed from the trustees or the Maxwell Street Presbyterian
Church to Mary C. East recorded in Deed Book 190 page 231, and also
in the deed of ratification w'1ich I am preparing, there is this oov-
enant affecting the title to the lot purchased by you, to-wit:

     "It is mutually agreed bFtween the parties hereto, that in the
event a division fence is made between the property hereby conveyed
and the property of first parties, said fence shall not exceed two
(2) feet in height, unless otherwise agreed to by both parties at
the time."

     This refers to the line between the property in question and
the Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church.

     In Hiortgate Back 1 page 490, there is recorded a mortgage
from L. McCauley to J. A. Grinstead, dated December 12, 1972, to
secure any money which grantor might be found to owe the grantee
on a settlement of their accounts, and also to secure grantee as
surety on the note of grantor to Jennie Worley for $500.00 payable
twelve months after the date of the mortgage.   This mortgage is
unreleased on the record, but I am of the opinion that it is barred
by limitation.

     In MOrtgage Book 1 page 68, there is recorded a mechanic's
lien in favor of E. B. Wood against the lot now in question and
also the Presbyterian Church lot, to secure an indebtedness of
$146.55, which lien was recorded November 28, 1888, and against
Lizzie M. Johnston, the then owner of the property.   It does not
appear on the record that this lien has been released and, while
the law requires that the saime be erilorced by suit within one year
after the date it was filel, it is practically an impossibility to
tell whether such a suit was ever filed, as the lien might be en-
forced by a cross-petition in another suit, which cross-petition
would not be indexed as original suits are.   But if a suit wns
instituted within the year to enforce this lien, the fact that the
holder of the lien had failed to prosecute his action for a per-
iod of almost 21 years, duringi which tine the property has been
transferred four times, would constitute such laches as in my opin-
ion prevent the enforcing of any right which he might otherwise
have had.   In addition to this, the lien covers the Presbyterian
Church property as well as the East Lot, and the church would be