The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-04-20
Important Decisions Of the Court Of
y .iEe.Ein 81. Appeals. ..-


portant decisions. We note the most inte-
Iresting at length $500 f. :, 80. r.,
Parrish ct ats. us. Segar d. Fnnt.-The
heirs ut law Of Mark and William Parrish,
I pAots 10 the Virginia navy in the Revolu-
| tionary War, in 1858 employed Joseph
Segar TO recover, assign, and sell for them
bounty land-scrip to be issued to them by
1.-THE United States Government. agreeing
TO give him one-third OF the amount he
should recover, and also empowered him
| 20 substitute any person in his place to
carry into effect said powers OF attorney.
segar obtained from the Federal Govern
ment recognition Of the claim and employ
| ed Hamilton 6. FAINT as substituted attor--
ney to receive the scrip. The scrip was
received by FAINT, and sold and assigned by
| MN as attorney in fact for the complain
ants. ,1 s-r.-...,... - ,o,-.'
| The bill was filed against both Segarand
FAINT, charging that between the two they
mad got the scrip and converted it into mo-
ney, and failed to account for the same,
They demurred to the bill and answered.
The court below entered decree against
Segar and FAINT jointly. and held that the
| one-thlrd of the scrip was forfeited because
they had failed to perform their duty as
required Of an attorney, and required them
| to pay the whole amount received by them
| into court with interest. 80
| Segar in his answer stated that he had
sold the scrip to Rittenhouse, Sweeney
| & FAINT for 80 cents on the dollar, and had
merely appointed FAINT his substituted
| attorney in orderto enable him to draw the
scrip; that the said clearinghouse had
paid him tSegar) the full purchase money
for the scrip. which he acknowledged he
had not paid over, except some small
amount in sums, and to parties which he
could not remember. Segar's deposition
proved the statement in bis answer. Sc
gar and Sands appealed from the decision
Of the Circuit Court Of Richmond. The
Court of Appeals overruled the demurrer
to the bill, and decided that Segar was re-
sponsible for the whole amount of money
which he received from Sweeney, .Ritten-
house & FAINT, and had forfeited his COM
| missions because of his failure to per-
form his duty in accounting to the plaintiffs
| for the money he received; but the court
also held that the sale to Sweeney, Ritten-
house & FAINT was valid sale, and that
FAINT was not responsible to the complain
ants. The recovery against Segar, princi-
pal and interest, will amount to some ten
or twelve thousand dollars. ..
Ould & Darlington for the appellants;
A. Fl. Sands and John Howard for the APP
pellee.
Winston d Po,rers ct. ais. us. the M'dlo-
THAN Coal Mining Comparative bill in
this case was presented to the Judge Of the
Circuit Court Of the city of Richmond by
Winston g. Powers and other unsecured
creditors of the Midlothian Coal Mining
Company to the amount of about $40, 900,
stating in substance that the company had
made three deeds of trust to secure bonds
and notes to the amount of S135, 900, which
deeds were illegal and invalid and the
bonds and notes secured thereby void.
They prayed that the deeds might he set
aside, that the agents who had sold tho
should be held to an account, and
that the sale Of the Midlothian pits
and property advertised to take place
on the Doth day of May, 1860, might
be enjoined and restrained, and for further
relief. The Judge granted the injunction,
but the trustees in the deed did not regard
| it, and proceeded to sell the property as
advertised. They afterwards moved the
court to dissolve the Injunction on the
ground that it had no jurisdiction of the
case, because the. Acts of Assembly provi-
ded that jurisdiction of Il bill for Injunction
| should be in the court of the county or cir
cult in which the act was to be done or APP
pretended. and that as the sale of the coal
pits was to take place in Chesterfield coun-
| ty the circuit or county court Of Chester
| field alone had jurisdiction in the case. The
court 1T first oyerruled the motion, but
afterwards mt different term dissolved the
Injunction and dismissed the bill. Winston
and Powers appealed from that decision.
on the ground that the bill was not bill
| merely for an injunction, but had other
and important objects to which the inlunc-
ton was merely ancillary and incidental
and as the chief defendants resided in Rich
mond, and as the principal Office of the
company was here, the Circuit Court of
Richmond was the proper court to enter
tain the bill. The Court OF Appeals re-
yersed the decision of the court below, on
the ground that the bill was not purely for
an Injunction, but had other objects to
which the injunction was only incidental.
Apart from the particular interest in
volved in the above case, the decision is
regarded as one Of practical value by The
profession, US settling an important point
unanimous opinion of the court was deliv-
cred by Judge Joynes. James Alfred Jones,
John Howard, and James Lyons for the
aDpellants Guild & Darlington and NeesOn
for the trustees and the purchaser under
the deed.
Lunqhorue d Scott Us. Robinson.-The
city of Lynchburg was authorized by the
Legislature to guarantee certain stock OF
the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad Com
pany, and to impose taxes within and for
certain distance outside of the territorial
limits of the city. The future question is |
whether the Legislature can delegate to the |
councilof city the power to tax property
outside of the territorial limits of the said |
city. The Legislature has in general pie |
nary power of taxation, except IN the few |
cases in which restrictions are imposed by !
the Constitution. This vital power may De |
abused but that the power may be abused
or pcryertcd is no argument against the eX-
istepce of the power. 1t is matter of le-
pislatiye discretion. The Legislature framed
the law in pursuance of petition from the
inhabitants Of this adjacent territory to the
city of Lynchburg, and the Legislature
deemed that the guarantee of this stock was
TO facilitate the building of the railroad,
and would promote the interest of the adj
accent territory as well as and equally with
the territory within the city. The Council
possess that power. The decree of the
lower court is affirmed.
THE ROCKINGHAM HABEAs Co RPUs CASE.
In the Court OF Appeals yesterday the
case of Jones VS. the Commonwealth was
decided. Jones was sentenced to the peni-
Tertiary for three years, after conviction for
felony, the minimum punishment for
which was term of five years. He was
accordingly sent to the penitentiary, where
he is now confined. The case comes up by
writ of error. The Court of Appeals set
aside the verdict of the jury and the judg-
ment of the Circuit Court of Rockingham,
which pronounced the sentence, and award
ed a new trial, and directed the issuing of 4
habeas corpus to bring up the body of the
prisoner and upon the prisoner appear.