The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-04-12
DECISION OF AN IMPORTANT CASE.

DECISION OF AN lMPORTANV CASE-
TWENTY YEARS IN THE CoURTs.-On Sat-
ulday last Judge Mclaughlin rendered his
decision in the famous combined cases OF
Frazier's Guardian vs.. Frazier's Widow. &C.;
S. A. Porter and ,wife's admir- VS.. WIN. Fra
zier, &C., aad S. A. Porter and wfe's admir-,
and JAS A. Frazier VS.. VIM. Frazier, A.
d. Campbell and J. F. Randolph.
The history of this important case, WHICH
has been in Court for over twenty years and
has been decided by judge Shelley, and it
is claimed, orally, by Judge Thompson
(Which claim, however, was rejected by
Judge Mclaughlin for the reason that it was
not Of record is briefly as follows:
In about the year 1852, Jno. W. Frazier,
Bath Alum Springs, the latter of which
proved an Improbable venture, determine
to buy the Rockbridge Alum Springs, for
the purchase price of sl5000o. Connecting
this property with the Bath Alum lie sold 20
his brother, VIM. Frazier, and to his cousin,
J. F. Randolph, fourth each OF the COM
blned properly for $j5 00) each. Then CON :.
meuced the partnership IT Frazier e Ran
dolph After that .Jno. W. Frazier project
| ed extensive improvements to the Rock
bridge Alum and entered into large con-
tracts to THAT end. In 1858, he died, leavin x
the improvements IL lcompleted. the ptr-
chase moaey unpaid, ;tnl Il large anGLlt OF
Indebtedness resting upon the estate. On
his death bel, H.. asked Wan. Frazier to au
minister upon his estate, act as guardian for
his only child, Jas. n. Frazier, and carry
into execution his plan, OF selling off all his
outside property and consolidating his means
upon the improvement OF the Rockbrdge
Alum. VIM. Frazier, then being Il one-
fourth owner, abandoned his law practice in
this city and devoted his whole time and
means to carrying out the plans of his
brother and IN lna.ins the property. In
1854, rupture occurred betweeL the sur
viying partnurs, and Ms. Frazier institute d
a suit, which from t rat time on has been an
grily c,ntestc,l. Il 1855 an L lltionll sli5
was brauy.lt k':nWn - til. suit OF Porte
and wife vs.. Fr lzrr-Mr,. FrlZer, IN the
meantime having married Stephen A.Portcr-
The consolidate cases w.r: referred to
Master Commits sone- Jno. n. I.ndren, to
settle tlle account OF Wnl. Fiazi"r, as gutr
dian, administrator, manager, We. The re-
port of the Co nmiss ioner WI: filed in 1869,
and allowed compensation to VIM. Frazier
for services as manager This allowance is
said to have been directed by judge Thomo-
son, after hearing elaborate argument, but
of this there is no record. Upon this matter
of compensation the chief fight was waged.
After TIL. war, the report of the Commits
sioner was recominitted for further account
ing and Il new report was made bringing up
the account to 1858. This second report
also allowed compensation from the death of
Jno Frazier to date, and after able argyll
ment was twice contirn,l by JUICE Shef
few, in so far as it related to the mitter of
compensation, but WIS recon- nitted for
further accounting rs to other matters. In
the same year, 1858, the prop .rty WIS de-
creed to be sold by the Colrt, AMI Wm.
Frazier Vas appointed special Receiver an
Manager Of the property n chat year.
The property soil for 1921, 900 and WIS pnr
ing the next highest bidder. \ still further
account was then taken and report filed, but
never acted apon until recently.
JAS. A. Frazier, after the DEGREES OF 1858,
file ! d petition TO rehear the 'lecrees in so
far as they allowed compensation.
At the November ter II last, the case came
before Ju lge Mclauy hlin for \ rehearing OF
Judge Sheffeys decree. Not being able to
complete the argument at that time, il spa
cial term of the Circuit Court was hell i'll
January last, and learned and elaborate. ar
guments were male by Geo. VI. Cochran,
jr. and Judge Fnltz, on behalf of VIM. Fra
zier, and Gen. Jno. Echols AMI S. V. South
all for Jas. A. Frazer.
| The counsel for Jas. A. Frazier held that,
according to we'll established rule. neither
partner nor surviving partner has the right
to compensation for services in the
management OF partnership business, and
| that Wm. Frazier had been amply compen
sated by commissions us administrator,
| &C., and that his services hal not bee as
| valuable as claimed. The counsel for VIM.
Frazier claimed that they were tenants in
common of real estate and not partners,
but if it was Il partnership property, thai in
as much lis VIM. Frazier, by the terms of
his co-partnership, was to render no service
| to it, aud the man who was TO have render
ed the service having died, aud by the voice
| of all parties VIM. Frazier was called upon |
| to render that service, and the result OF his
| management had been highly advantageous
| to the parties interested therefore, said Fra
zier acas entitled to compensation on we'll |
settled authority in such cases-ohlt in such |
| cases there is no arbitrary rule, but that
| each case is TO BE- cried by its own peculiar
| circumstances
| The decision OF Julg. McLlu ,hlin was
that the prayer Of VIM. Frazer's petition
| with reference to the Introduction of Judge
| Thompson's oral decision, must be rejected,
| ''as the Court en- only look to the record
! for the opinions auJ instructions OF the
Court to its Master Commissioner. The
Court Is further of opinion TINT there i, no
error in the DEGREES OF Eeb'y and June, 1868,
complained OF by J. A. Frazier. except that
compensation shoud not have been allowed
| to Wm Frazier, as manager OF Rockbridge
Alum and Bath alum Springs. for the years
1853 and 1851, IL the evidences indicates
that, during that period, the parties inter-
ested in the property were contributing to
its management, and VIM. Frazier, at least
prior to Sept. 1851, hid not regarded him-
self as laboring for il salary. The Court doth
therefore adiVdge. order and decree -
1st. That the said petition Of VIM. Frazier
be rejected.
2nG. The. said petition Of Jas A. Frazier
for rehearing is overruicd, except as to the
compensation allowed VIM. Frazier as man
ager for the years 1853 and 1851, and as to
said compensation, the said DEGREES of Feb
ruary and June 1868 are re!leard and cor
rected so far as they allow compensation for
1858 and 1851, and the Master Commissioner
to whom these causes are hereinafter re-
ferred, will eliminate the compensation al
| lowed for 1853 and 1854. and correct the re- |
of ~ 4,