Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-09-17
Property Sales.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.

II. H. Lfnus
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
The Court met here Friday last-present
Judges Moncure, Anderson, Staples and
Christian; Judge Bouldin absent from ill
health. The following cases have been
submitted during the week: Beirne VS.
Rosser and Turner, Evans VS.. Pettijohn,
Thurman VS.. Woods, Young VS.. Mary
Cabell's ex'rs, Peters VS.. Nevill's trustees,
Tardy VS.. Boyd's ann: +, Crane VS.. Picker,
Meade VS.. Grigsby's admir-, and Fisher
81 Bro. VS. March, &c. A. d. Trotter,
&C., were required to show cause why
they should not give new bond in the
case against Newton, &c. In Turner VS..
the O. & A. r. r. a decree was given by
,nsent reversing the decision of the lower
court. The following are the
DECISIONS OF THE COURT
made yesterday:
Ashby's Admir- Is. Porter and al.-From
the Circuit Court of W inchester. Ashby
& Co., doing business in Winchester, ne
gotiated note for $1,000 before the war
and renewed it at various times until
April, 1862, when the bank removed to
Farmville to avoid the enemy. The note
was protested for non-payment. About
that time Porter was going on his own
business to Richmond, and Ashby Il Co.
arranged with him to pay their note. On
Porter's return Ashby Il Co. executed
their note to him, payable one year after
date, for the amount he had paid to the
bank at Farmville on account of their
note. The Circuit Court held that al
though the debt due from Ashby & Co. to
the bank was specie debt yet Porter was
only entitled to recover the value OF the
Confederate money paid by him, and that
the Individual assets of Ashby were liable
for the partnership debt. Judgement of
the Court below affirmed, Judge Moncure
delivering the opinion of the Court.
Broom u.s. Rice Adna'r.-Frcm the Cir
cult Court of Rockingham. Court of
Appeals decided that mistake even of
law induced by the fraudulent misrepre-
sensations of one party can be pleaded by
the other in bar of an action brought on a
bond obtained by such Interpretations.
Judgment of lower Court reversed, Judge
Anderson delivering the opinion Of the
Court
Green Us. Phillips and al.-FrOm the
Circuit Court of Rockingham. Court of
Appeals decided that machinery essential
to the conduct of the business of a factory
are failures and part of the realty, there
fore not subject to the lien of a .t-fa.
Judgment of the Court below reversed
Judge Christian delivering the opinion of
the court.
Mcbride and al Us. Mcbride and al
From the Circuit Court of Rockbridge.
Mcbride. sometime before his death,
wrote a letter to his brother in Texas,
detailing his domestic troubles-among
others, his belief in the infdelity of his
wife and his conviction that child just
born to her, was not his, and his determi-
nation to make will by which it should
be disinherited. He also detailed minute
ly how. and to whom, he should leave his
property, which was extensive, saying he
should appoint his brother and friend
executors, remarking that it was uncertain
whether the letter would rea oh his brother,
and that if it did he would know from
whom it was, and to burn it: he only
signed his initial, J. Subsequently Il will
was carefully prepared at McBride's re-
quest by an attorney, containing substan-
italy the bequests ,as mentioned in the
letter to his brother-but not executed by
Mcbride. The letter to his brother was
Offered to the Circuit Court of Rockbridge,
as the last will of Mcbride. Probate was
refused by the Court. The Court of APP
peals-J Judge Staples delivering the opinion
of the Court, affirmed the judgement of
the Circuit Court, and decided that al
though a note. letter or other instrument
in the handwriting of. and signed by the
person making it, and intended by him to
be the final disposition Of his property, will
be admitted to probate as his last will. yet
in this case it does not appear that Nc
Bride intended the letter to his brother as
a will.
The intention being the gist of the mat
ter.