Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1877-04-13
Decision Of a 81 Years Suit.

Decision Of 81 Years Suit
WATERING PLACES IN THE COURTS
HISTORY OF THE ROCK ALUM-PROFITs
OF A sEAsoN-END OF A LONG LITIGA-
TON,
&C., &C., sc.
It is a curious fact about the Virginia
Springs west Of the Blue Ridge, that the
prominent ones have been for years tigur-
ing in the law courts. The famous White
Sulphur, in Greenbrier, is hanging on the
ragged edge of a judicial decision, order
ing its sale; the celebrated Hot springs, in
Bath, are in the courts; the Rawley
Springs, in Rockingham, have been sold;
the Stribling Springs, in Augusta, have
been ordered to be sold, and on Saturday
last suit arising out Of the Rockbridge
Alum Springs, which has been in court for
twenty-one years, was decided by Judge
Mclaughlin. The style of the suit was s.
A. Porter, guardian, and James A. Fra
zier, plaintiffs, against VIM. Frazier and
Jno. T. Randolph, and the history Of it
may be given as follows:
Twenty-Five years ago Jno. w.. Frazier,
who then owned the Bath Alum Springs,
bought the Rockbridge Alum Springs for
$4,000, and shortly afterwards sold one
half of that, and one-half of the Bath
Alum to VIM. Frazier and Jno. I. RAN
dolph-one quarter to each for $55, 900, be-
ing at the rate of $4,000 for the Two prop
critics. Jno. W. Frazier took possession Of
the Rockbrldge Alum in November, 1852,
and was to conduct the two establishments
as joint property, but only survived five
months, dying April 9th, 1858. VIM. Fra
zier was then called to the helm, and also
administered on his late brothers estate.
In 1856, three years after, a suit was insti-
tuted against him by his brothers widow,
and the guardian of her infant son for a
settlement of his administration accounts,
and his accounts and transactions as act
i've partner Of the firm; and either a re-
moval of him from the management or, at
least, a sharing of the same with the other
partners, according and in proportion to
their several interests in the joint property.
In the course Of this litigation, the defen-
dant having asserted his claim to COM
pensation for his services as active partner,
it was vigorously resisted by the plaintiffs,
but after elaborate argument before Judge
Thompson, he decided in defendants IA
vor, and instructed Commissi oner (now
Judge) Hendren to take testimony as to
what VIM. Frazier's ldbors We're and what
they were justly worth. Commissioner il.
took a mass Of testimony on this and other
issues in the cause, and made a very vo-
luminous report-indeed he made five re-
ports in the progress Of the cause, and as
signed to VIM. Frazier a yearly salary,
ranging from 81 500 to $4,000 and $500.
according to the magnitude Of the water
ing season, and its results. Some years
these results were as high as 900 clear
profit. The war came on then and Judge
Thompson did not long survive it, and it
was not until Judge Shelley was judge that
the case was fully heard and decided. The
decision, by sheffey, was in favor Of VIM.
Frazier, the defendant, at all points.
The case was brought before Judge
Mclaughlin upon the petition and bill of
Jas. A. Frazier, praying a rehearlng and
review Of the former DEGREES and was ar
gued by John Echols and S. V. Southall
for the plaintiff S, and David Fultz and
Geo. NJ. Cochran, Jr., for the defendants.
The Judge on Saturday delivered his opin-
ion, giving very comprehensive aud lu-
ninous review of the history Of the case,
now twenty-one years old, and an exhaus-
tive analysis of the evidence and the law
applicable thereto. He gave decree sub
stantially confirming the rulings of Judges
Thompson and Sheffey, save that he cut
off from VIM. Frazier his first years sala.
~ Of 81 800 in 1858 and the salary Of 50 900
in 1854, baause it was shown that at that
early day he did not claim d salary aud al
SO because his cop trtneIS We're those two
years aiding in the work. The practical
result Of the Judges modification Of the
previous DEGREES was to End that the plain
tiff, James A. Frazier is now indebted to
the defendant, Wan. Frazer about $4,000
and to the co-detendant, John L. Rail-
dolph, about $4,000.