Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-11-13

CorRT OF APPEALs.-In this Court
Yesterday the following decisions were
o;van. McChesney VS. Richardson and wife
and Others from the CircuitCourt OF Angus
IA CO. The case involved the title to the
American Hotel property, and the decis-
ion of the Circuit Court was lirme |, Civ
inc McChesney the one-fifth interest Of 5.
p Brown. Jr, in fee simple, anl the life
estate of A. 5. Lara in right of his wife in
another fifth. the remaining three-fifths to
Jno TT Richardson wife. Emma Brown.
and Ed ward Brown and requiring McChes-
new TO account to the last HI nell three for
tnree-ffths of the rents and profits from
the date of the death of Mrs s. B. Brown
in 1868, with the right to go against A. S.
Lara and S. B. Brown, il, on their bond
of indemnity to him for his loss. Judge
Moncure delivered the unanimous opin-
ion ofthe Court.
Crickhard's EX'ors VS.. Crickhard's lega-
tees; from Augusta Circuit Court. The
decree OF the Court below was unanimously
affirmed, requiring the Executor. H. NJ.
Bell, to pay over to the legatees OF Peter
Crickhard, decd, $500 which had come
into his hands as Executor IN 1859, and
which he, upon an &c pdrte order OF the
Circuit Court of Augusta county in 1868
had invested in Confederate bonds under
the act of Narcn 5;h. 1852, the Court hold.
ing that all three Of the elements required
by the act to authorize such an investment,
were wanting in this case. Judge Chris
tian delivered the opinion of the Courts
Kemper VS.. Ewing, from Augusta
Circuit Court. The decree Of the Circuit
Court was reversed in part, Judge An
derson delivering the opinion Of the Court.
Crawford VS.. tie Valley R. R. Co. from
the Circuit Court of Augusta. The Court
of Appeals reversed the Judgment OF the
Circuit Court, which ha reversed the
Judgment Of the County Court, decreeing
against the Valley r. r. Co. le amount of
compensation awarded by com mis- Sionars
to VIM. Crawford for the land taken by the
company for it's uses, and damages to the
residue; the Court Of Appeals holding that
TIE report of the commissioners in such
cases should not be set aside or interfefred
with unless for good cause shown, such as
misconduct in the commissioners, partial
ity or such excessive damages showed
improperly, and the Court held that in
this case there was no such award of eX-
cessive damages OF any improperly
in the conduct of the commits
sioners as to affect the validity Of the
award Judge Boullin delivered the opin-
ion Of the Court.
McClintic vs. Wise, from Bath co. Court
reversed the decision OF the Lower Court,
judge Momcure dissenting. Judge Staples
delivered the opinion of the four Jud 4es
This was Il case in which the vendor OF
of lands had assigned one of the bonds for
the deferred purchase money secured by a
vendors lien falling due after another
bond retained by him. Upon resale of
the land, the price obtained was in
sufficient to pay both. Tne Court
of Appeals deeid3l that the bond first
assigned, althougl becoming due after,
carl an assignment of the lien 50
far as was necessary for its payment, and
was to be first paid out of the proceeds
of such sale; although the assignee may
have by laches lost his recourse to
the assignor. On this last point Judge
Moncure dissentel.
Anderson VS.. Douglas, from Rockbridge
county. This was a case in which the ven
dee of q tract Of Iaul sold IN gross, and
described by metes and bounds, upon being
evicted from parts by title paramount,
sought to set off in an action for the I'M
paid purchase money the ret0tjpe,value OF
the land Lost, and not the average value
The Court below allowed the average value.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit
Court and decided that the proper meas
ure was the relative value, both under the
contract Of the parties and the law OF the
land; approving Clarke VS.. HardgroYe