TOM N. BESTMAN, et al., trustees of the BASSA BROTHERHOOD I & B SOCIETY, Appellants, v. HON. S. BENONI DUNBAR, SR., Circuit Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and D. R. HORTON, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM RULING OF JUSTICE PRESIDING IN CHAMBERS DENYING WRIT OF ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. Argued October 16, 1968. Decided February 7, 1969. 1. An aggrieved party who has failed to object to a judgment at the time of its issuance, may not raise objections to it subsequently in a related proceeding. 2. A party must presume upon his rights at the time they arise, or be deemed to have waived them, should he not. In 1965 a judgment was handed down against the present plaintiffs in error, in an ejectment suit brought by them for recovery of land held by the Society. The issuance of a deed was ordered in the name of the Society and its titular head in his representative capacity. At the time of judgment, the aggrieved parties took no exception, nor appealed from the judgment. Subsequently, during the process of enforcement, plaintiffs in error applied to the Justice in chambers for a writ of error, objecting to the original judgment upon which the enforcement proceedings were based. The writ was denied to them, and an appeal was taken from the ruling. Ruling af firmed, as modified with respect to providing for the eventuality of death of the representative of the Society named in the deed. Nete Sie Brownell and T. G. Collins for appellants. Lawrence A. Morgan and John W. Stewart for appellees. MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the court. 207 208 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Reverend D. R. Horton, who died in November 1967, was the founder and leader of the organization known as the Bassa Brotherhood Industrial and Benefit Society, with membership composed mostly of persons of Bassa Tribe origin. As time evolved and the Society progressed, it acquired property in Monrovia, a ten-acre block of land in the area known as Bassa Community, and one hundred acres in Bong County. While he was still a member of the Society, the other members, headed by Mr. Tom N. Bestman, entered an action of ejectment against him in 1965 for the recovery of the land situated in Monrovia and Bong County, which they claim he withheld from them. Because this cause did not arise from the trial, but rather from a sequel to the trial, its consideration herein is not essential. Issues of law and fact having been heard, concluded, and a verdict returned on August 15, 1965, Judge Hunter, who presided over said case, made the final judgment. “In view of the foregoing, the verdict of the jury is hereby confirmed and affirmed, and this court hereby adjudges the Bassa Brotherhood Society to possess the ten acres of land in Monrovia City according to the metes and bounds on their deeds assigned them by the grantor, B. J. K. Anderson. This possession is to include all members of the Bassa Society whose names appear on this deed, and as for the r,000 acres of land in Totota, since said portion of land has been disposed of by the Government of Liberia for reasons best known to the Government, Rev. Horton as head of the Society, as well as the Church, is to associate with the group and again apply to the President for the r,000 acres of land which he has already promised, or the value thereof, and this is to be done within thirty days from the date of this judgment, and the clerk of this court is hereby ordered to prepare a writ of possession to put the Bassa Society in possession of their ten acres of land in Bassa Community and their deeds LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 209 thereto turned over to them as a group to be kept wherever they feel. And if the i,000 acres of land is acquired, the Bassa Society is also to be put in possession, or given the value thereof. And it is hereby so ordered. “Given under my hand and Seal of Court this iith day of March, 1966. “JAMES W. HUNTER, Assigned Circuit Judge.” To this ruling of the judge, plaintiffs in error, now appellants, took no exceptions which would qualify them for announcement of an appeal, but to the contrary, defendants in error, now appellees, excepted and announced that they would appeal. The appeal was perfected and before the case could be called for hearing, for reasons unknown to us, they filed an application requesting a withdrawal of the appeal. Strangely, the application was resisted by plaintiffs in error, in substance contending that defendants in error had no legal right to withdraw their appeal. The resistance was overruled by this Court, and at the close of our March 1966 Term, the application having been granted, the lower court was ordered to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment. It was during the process of this enforcement that plaintiff in error applied to Mr. Justice Roberts in chambers for a writ of error. In their petition they raised issues that should have been raised against Judge Hunter, had they excepted to his ruling, as Judge Dunbar’s enforcement was in absolute harmony with the ruling made by Judge Hunter. We find it necessary to quote the relevant portion of the ruling of Judge Dunbar, and thereafter the entire petition. “Touching the ruling of Judge Hunter, this court fails to see why it is misunderstood by anyone, because the mandate from the Supreme Court authorizes the enforcement of the final judgment of the trial judge, and his final judgment reads: ‘That the ten 210 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS acres of land, the subject matter of the proceedings, are to be turned over to the Bassa Brotherhood Society according to the metes and bounds of the deeds, and those persons whose names appear on said deeds.’ According to this deed for the ten acres, Reverend Horton’s name appears therein, and he is a member of the Bassa Brotherhood Society as we know, so that if the deed has been turned over to him, it is in keeping with the final judgment of Judge Hunter. With respect to the i,000 acres of land situated somewhere in Totota, this land, for reasons best known to the Government, has been disposed of to individual citizens, and according to the final judgment of Judge Hunter, the members of the Bassa Brotherhood Society are to get together and approach the President for r,000 acres of land elsewhere. Whether this has been done, we cannot say. Therefore, it will be advisable for the other members of the Brotherhood Society to contact their leader and member, Dr. Horton, in order to make the final adjustment among themselves. This matter is closed as far as the court is concerned. And it is so ordered.” The petition reads : “I. That the said plaintiffs in error, acting in their representative capacity, instituted the above ejectment suit against codefendant in error D. R. Horton, also a member of said Society, for the recovery of their portion of the ten-acre plot of land in Monrovia, as well as of their t,000 acres of farm land in Totota, as described in their deeds made profert with the complaint. “2. That said codefendant in error admitted the claim to the ten-acre plot of land in Monrovia, and alleged in his pleading that he was prepared to put them in possession of said property, but that the plaintiffs in error were not authorized members of the Society to be put in possession thereof; he also admitted their claim to the r,000 acres of farm land in Totota, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 211 and informed the court at the trial that said property has been sold by the Government to other parties. “3. That at the trial of the case, plaintiffs in error established their title to the premises which were the subject of their claim, and thereupon obtained a verdict and final judgment in their favor; to which judgment codefendant Horton excepted and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, but which appeal has been lately withdrawn so that the final judgment of the trial court may be enforced. “4. But notwithstanding the premises above set out, Judge Dunbar made a ruling on the r 5th day of the current month to the effect that since codefendant Horton’s name appears in the deed for the ten-acre plot of land in Monrovia, he also being a member of the Society, if the deed for said property is delivered to him and he be placed in possession thereof, such act is in keeping with Judge Hunter’s judgment and should be carried out; whereas such construction of the judgment was not interpreted with reference to the verdict of the jury ‘that the plaintiffs are entitled to their ten acres of land’ ; it being sufficient if the judgment shows distinctly that the matter has been determined in favor of one of the litigants in respect to the subject matter of the action. (See final judgment–verdict of the jury; also Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6 :86o, 816.) “5. That Judge Dunbar erred in attempting to put the defeated party in the ejectment suit in possession of said property merely because his name is in said deed, or his relationship with the Society as one of the trustees.” (See Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6 :980.) The petition presents a confusing and conflicting picture, especially counts one, four, five, and the prayer thereof. Count one avers that appellee, D. R. Horton, up to the time of the filing of the petition, was still a member of the 212 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Society; it obviously follows that he was a member of the said Society when the ejectment suit was filed. This tends to regard Dr. Horton as coplaintiff in the ejectment suit, since the suit was entered in the name of the Society of which he was still a member. Count five tends to show that his relationship with the Society has been severed ; however, this not being the main issue involved in the denial of the peremptory writ, we shall proceed further. In count four petitioner contends that the judgment of Judge Hunter has not been interpreted by reference to the verdict of the jury. If the judgment varies from the sense of the jury’s verdict, it was done by Judge Hunter and not Judge Dunbar. Judge Dunbar attempted to implement that judgment; hence, plaintiffs in error should have taken the exceptions they thought necessary before Judge Hunter, at the time of judgment. It was physically impossible for the judge to have delivered the deed in the hands of all members of the Society. In Judge Hunter’s judgment, he referred to Dr. Horton as head of the Society and the Church. Obviously Judge Dunbar had no alternative but to deliver the deed to Reverend Horton. We would like to here mention that in the error proceedings there is no showing that Reverend Horton has been relieved of this position and someone else appointed in his place. Notwithstanding their disagreement with this construction of the verdict, as rendered by Judge Hunter, plaintiffs in error, in their conclusion, prayed that said judgment of Judge Hunter be effectuated. In practice, it is required of every person to take advantage of his rights at a proper time, and neglecting to do so will be considered a waiver. The error was assigned, argued, and on January i8, 1968, the Justice presiding in chambers concluded that: “The ruling of the enforcing judge is in no way dis- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 213 similar to that of the trial judge. Judge Hunter ruled that the property should be possessed by members of the Society whose names appear on the deed and refers specifically to Reverend Horton as the head of the organization, as well as the Church. Who is more competent to secure the property and interest of the Society than its head, who had in the past been the custodian of such property of the Society? Commenting on count four, it seems but right procedurally for plaintiffs to have excepted to the ruling of Judge Hunter if they were not in agreement with his judgment. The ruling of Judge Dunbar is no deviation from that of Judge Hunter. And if plaintiffs failed to except to the former ruling and appealed therefrom, they have voluntarily waived their rights so to do and cannot now take advantage of same. If Judge Hunter’s judgment was contrary to the verdict of the jury, plaintiffs in error are now barred from raising this contention. “Because of the above, it is the ruling of this court that the peremptory writ prayed for be denied and the alternative writ quashed, with costs against plaintiff in error.” From the brief comments we have made here antecedent to quoting the ruling of the Justice, it is evident that we are in accord with that ruling. The ruling being legally sound, the same is hereby affirmed, with the modification that subsequent to the death of Reverend Horton, the deed in litigation is to be turned over to the trustees of the Bassa Brotherhood Society, and is to include all those whose names now appear on the deed. Costs against appellants. The clerk of this Court is, therefore, ordered to send a mandate to the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment, as modified. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed as modified.