Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-11-20
DEc1sroNs BYrHE COURT OF APPEALS

DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
THE Court of Appeals yesterday render
day the following decisions:
| Kelly VS.. Larguey, from Alleghany Cir
| cult Court. Decree Of the Court affirmed
with damages and costs. Judge M >ncure
delivered the opinion of four Judges and
Judge Bouldin dissented There were two
points involved-first, whether there was
partnership, 81 us to give the court chan
Gerry jurisdiction to settle the account-the
court held that there was. there being
a community of profit, although that
profit consisted Of q commission on the
amounts disbursed second, whether or not
a receipt pro lueel by the defendant was
applicable to amounts claimed by plaintiff
| on the estimates from September, 1855, tc
| March, 1856. iii there we're any; majority
of court held lat the receipt was to be
applied to those eStim ties ; on this latter
point Judge Boul lin dssented.
Ltvell VS.. Gol4's admir-, from Circuit
Court of R1ckbrid &c. Ii this case there
had been awarded an issu out of chancery
on which the verdict WIS for the defendant.
| rne Chancellor set aside the verdict and
| awar led new trial. A succeeding chan
celor set asid3 tn 1t II, a third chan
cellor decreed in favor of defendant, as
if the verdict had never been set aside.
Court held that it WAS competent for the
irst chancellor to aware. the new trial, the
code of Virginia not intending TO prevent
Il chancellor when he WAS the ju lge before
whom it was tried, from setting aside a
verdict OIL an issue in ehancary when he
saw proper us in other cases and that 1t Vas
not ,mpetent for the succeeding chain
cellor ec nasro neotu, no exceptions having
been taken by the defendtnt to the action
of the previous chancellor, t, Set aside his
action and decree up N the verdict. Court
reversed the d3cisi III os t l9 'W3f c)Irt,
with costs, and rem lnded the cause Judge
Anderson delivered the opinion.
Burnett and wife vs.. HaWpe's Ex'or,
from the Circuit Court of Augusta. In
this case the Court of Appeals decided that
d married woman having separate estate
is, as 10 such estate, tenas sole, and can
dispose Of it absolutely if it be personal
property, or the rents and profits of real,
unless restricted by express term OR neces-
sary implication i'll the instrument Great
ing it, and may charge it for herself or for
her property or for another, even though
that other be her husband, and may even
give it t., him, there being M uni le in
huence; and that whenever she executed
an obligation, whether joint or several,
as principal OF surety for her husband or
d stranger, it WAS to presumed that she
intended to charge the property, in order
to give effect to the instrument. The de-
cree of the Court b low was affirmed, Judge
Staple delivering the opinion.
uansborough and wife VS.. Stennett,
from Botetourt Circuit Court. Cont of
Appeals held that tlis w IS an action at
law for SANDER at common law, and not
under the statute in which the words must
imp lite a crime liable to be punished in
the temporal court, aud the words must be
set out in the ave.ment and colloquium;
that the inuendo cannot introduce any
meaning broader than the words and COLT
quinn will naturally bear; and if the words
thus explained do not impute such a crime,
they are not actionable at common law.
Supersedeas was granted, Judge Anderson
delivering the opinion of the Court.
Hahn's Admir- vs.. BOILER. From Rock
ingham county, on a motion for a rehear-
ing. This was an action at law on a bond
in which the defence was that the surety
delivered it to the principal as an escrow,
not to be delivered rs his deei, unless
another party signed it as co-surety with
himself, and the principal had delivered it
without such co-surety or notice to th
obligee. 1t had been decided against him
in this Court as being similar to Nash VS..
Puget. There was a motion for new
trial because of defects in tla case agreed.
in lowing that the bond WIS II 1t perfect
on it's face, in this case as in that, oyer not
having been crived, and the bond maiie ii
part Of the record. Court held that i'll the
case agreed at the foot of the declaration
the bond had been copied as was described
in the declaration; but if it had been in
complete, it was matter for the defendant
to show, and he should have craved oyer.
Court overruled the motion, Ju lge Staples
delivering the opinion OF the Court.
The Court adjourned yesterday for the
term.