Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-12-07
LOVE AND A LAWSUIT.
CAsK WHERE THE YOUNG LADY DIS
oBEYED TIE PARENTAL IN
JUNCTION.
A Number Of Coupon. Cases Decided By the
Supreme Court OF Appeals
Yesterday.

1tbLbluhys
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day Judge Lewis delivered the opinion in
the case OF Phillips and wife Versus Ferger'
sons executors. from the Circuit Court OF
the city Of Petersburg.
Tbis was litigation where there was a
will. loye-mstch. snd lawsuit. The tes-
iator was Ethedred r. FergersOn, who was
resident Of the county Of Greenesville and
who died in that county on the 81 OF June
1854, leaving wife and eight children. As
10 the matters in controversy the following
extract from the answer OF Margaret Y. Fer
gerson. execulrix, and George Z. Fergerson,
executor OF the will mother aud brother oi
the female plaintiff gives brief history OF
tho case:
Many years ago, before tho year 1861, one
| Thomas WATSON Phillp4 married hsrthe a.
Mitchell. The half sister q your respondent VINO
was the wife OF the tesiAtor 80 that tho children
Of said Phillips and the children Of tie tostator
were on their mothers side 6rst cousins oi the
haf-biOOd. Tho two families lived about ti1
miles npart-tho Ph!llpses 10 the county OF
| Brunswick aud the FergersODs in GreenesFnlr.
More ban twenty yoars ago there arose a dis
| pute about fodder-stack. which ended ln
/ quarrel. Thomas Walton Phillips warranted
/ the teststor. The result Of the trial has passed.
| from memory, but from that risl-daY until the
death OF the teststor he never spoke 10 bH
| BROTHER in-laW. intercourse between me amt
/ lies was prohibited. During twenty years
your female respondent visited hcT sister,
trs Thiilips, Ouiy tWicO-on one occasion 70 At
I tend funeral, and on the other 70 BUY COW
( Nine children we're born ia each family. Of
course u oas Impossible 70 keep tne young peo,
pie apart during tho religious festivals and social
| festivities of The neighbOrhCod. During the year
| 1893 il tecams known that william homas fhil-
| lips vas cOurting bis cousin Ellen q. fMgerson,
and that Ellen was not an unwilling listener
| Tho testhtor. a. soou as the fact came n his
know edge, was very Angry. and tOrDa1e bleh
/ 20 encourage her cousins advances. ana teil ntl
that he would dsOWn and dtsinherit her II she
/ married him. len deliberately chose 70 dciy
her fathers anger and stick % her lover
1t the January term q tho County Court ot
! Creon8sviie IN tho year IA the pisintn. VII
! liam Thomas Phillips, mado % the tesiator fcr-
mai application ~ writing for permission %
marry h g daughter Ellen, which permission the
tsstator also Ia writing refused In strong terms.
Respondents regret that the letters cannot Dc
profuced as they. ifthey we're still In existence.
would be- the best evidence Of the tesiaiors feel
fngs and surrOun iings in this behalf
There IA 10 reason 70 believe that tho testator,
before the year 1Ssj ever made will. But u is
true that 10 the month u January 1884, ana alter
! the cOrrcspOndence above referred o.. ho had an
interview with his dsugbfer tllen. and showed
Der Rsketch Of the will he Intended 10 mako. ana
advised and RlfnOulatfi IeF Lildt III htt ptthl-t'A
| jn hcr purpose 70 Many william Thomas fnti-
lips ho, the testatOr. you'd cut her on with tho
eum OF g.. whilo Otherwise be would put her
on The foOtlog Of the rest OF his chill
dren. The plaintiff, Ellen, agsin o. o.
[ alternative Of marrying her lover, although
nne would thereby forfeit all Interest in her
fathers estate except tue three dollars atOres
aud an this was we'll known iR the families AZ
aud about tho time - tho occurrence. After
wards mo plaintiff, Ellen, Without hor fathers
knowledge and ag1insl his wishes, went with her
| Jovor ACCOMPANIED by proper social escort
acro.s tbs Stato line inio North Carolina, and
/ there tho two plaintiffs wore lawfully married
| ia the presence OK Witnesses on tho llth day OF
| Febru1ry, 1854, in opposition 10 the tesiator 8
! wishes.
The Circuit Court was asked TO set aside
the will because il constituted a condition in
/ restraint Of m1rri lgc; such condition being
| unreasonable and against sound public
| policy, and various other objections we're
urged. lts Judgment Vas that the will was
/ good and that the proper construction OF 1t
/ entitled Mrs. Phillips TO none of the real
/ estate, hut to 50 and q one eighth share OF the
/ personally. ThereupOn she and her husband
/ appealed.
/ The Supreme Court yesterday said that
! Mrs. Phillips was entitled TO the So and no
more. Accordingly the decree was affirmed
/ q. TO the realty. and reversed as 10 the per-
soua,y, aud so Mrs. Phillips gets the 50 and
/ no more.
Mr. George S. Bernard appeared for the
appellants; NJ. John Lyon FOR the appel
lees.
/ COUPON LiuGATION-A DISSENTING OPINION
FROM JUDGE LEWIS.
Yesterday the case Of Cooper against The
| Commonwealth and other similar cases we 2
/ decided bv the Court OF Appeals. Cooper
Has sued in the Circuit Court Of this city by
! the Commonwealth 10 recover the sum Of
/ S2OSi for liccnse-tixes for trRnsaciing She
/ business OF a broker. At the trial the de-
/ fendant pleaded that he had duly rendered in
psymeut Of the taxes SUED for taX-receivahle
coupons cut from bonds of the state. issued
under the funding bill 81 1871. which were
refused ty the collecting officer Of the State
and which he brought into court These
fscts were proved by the evidence, and also
that tho coupons IN question were bought
| bv the defendant IN open marbet In
! London. he also proved that be WIS
not the owner OF the bonds from
which the coupons had been cut, and that
ne did not know who owned them. and that
ne was unable TO produce tbem. The COM
| monWelth ihertup0n called upon me de-
fcndani 10 produce the bonds, and the de-
fendant moved the Court 10 Oyerruie this
demand on the ground that the act Of the
f. General Assembly approved January 20,
1856. unddr which The demand was made
/ was repugnant 10 thsf article OF the Federil
/ Constitution wblch declares that no state
shall pass auy law impslring The obligation
| OF contracts But the Court ruled that the
! act was valid. and sustained the demand ;
and thsrcupOn judgment was rendered for
the Commonweal from which Judgment
the defendant appealed 10 the Court OF Ap-
pcals. alleging that The set above mentioned
was unconstitutional and void.
The conteutlon OF the appellant was that
when the state issued her bonds, with ueeo-
table and taX-TeceivSble coupons thereto al
tached, she eJ r, teImini contracted that they
might be separated one from tie Other, the
coupon coming 20 be owned by one person
whist the bond might he owned by another
IN a separate jurisdiction, without any con-
Meeting link whatever between the two per
sons; that this being so. she necessarig BAR
red herself from any right TO demand nom
The person holding the coupon the produe-
ton of the bond from which It came IN any
issue between herself and the eoupon.ho'd-
er, since in many, and indeed In most cases,
/ il l. manifesily and In the neture OF thn2s
| impossible for the coupon-holder 10 produce
the bond.
The Court, however, affirmed the iudg-
rnent, holding the act yaId, upon the su'
thorItv OF Commonwealth VS.. Weller aud
other cases reported in 81 Virginia Reports.
judge Lewis dssented. He said that, ac-
cordlng TO his Interpretation Of the Const'-
tuition OF the United States, which, as a
Judge Of the state Of Virginia. be had been
sworn to support, the act vas utterly repug-
nant 10 that instrument, and therefore in
operative under the circumstances disclosed
by the record; that il the state can re-
qulre TIE production OF the bonds IN
question under such circumstances bY
the coupon holder when brought by
her into court as a defendant be saw
no reason why the Legislature may nol
cut the G0rdian knot OF the debt question at
once by making it = capital felony for any
man, woman, or child to buy a coupon, or
/ even TO be seen with coupon IN hs or her
! possession. Tust, he SAID, would be cruel
messure. but, 10 his judgment, no more un'
I constitutional than the act m question uncef
] tne circumstances mentioned. To call such
| an act the valid exercise Of the undNputed
/ mower which the Legislature possesses 10
! prescribe f7tleS OF eCideRce in the courts OF
I the Common wealth, he declared. was worse
I sb.n sn.ckarv. fnat il IA 10 all iBtents and