Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-09
THE GALLEGO MILLS
THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS JUDGE
HoLLADAY's ACTION.
'u0R' saumste an Unsuccessful Litigsnt-
The Morris eass-vsrious
Court Items.

~VeAt Atomt.
@-----
In the supreme Court Of Appeals yes
terday. all the judges sitting. Judge
Lacy delivered the opinion in the case Of
Todd against the Gallego Mills Manu-
featuring Company and others.
This was the Gallego Mills case. Az
the sale, ordered by the Chancery Court
OF Richmond, all the property (except-
ing the brands) was knocked down IN
Charles Il. Todd for $l20, 600. but short
iy afterwards General Joseph r. Ander-
son put In an upset bid, offering Sl32 600
Tor tins property. The Court thereupon
refused to confirm the sale 70 Todd
Todd desired TO appeal from this de-
clslon, but the Court would not permit
him, and made nm order directing a re-
sale. Ihereupon Todd obtained from n
Judge OF the Supreme Court a writ of
error, but not sUpersedeas.
Judge Lacy, upon reviewing the
whole case, said that the Chsncery Court
OF Richmond was clearly right in refu-
sing to confirm the sale sfter the unset
bld was made, and that the special cir
cumstances relied on by plaintiff were
not sufficient to justify deviation from
the well-settled law on this subject, but
that nevertheless the Court should have
allowed the appeal. However, as Todd
had promptly secured an appeal through
one OF the judges of this court and no
injustice or hardship was the result Of
the Courts refusal to allow the appeal,
the action of the Chancery Court of
Richmond refusing to confirm the sale
was affirmed.
1t did not appear on this record, but
IS nevertheless fact, that at the resale
the entire property, which was first
knocked out tatSl27, 200, brought Sl94, 100
and the purchasers were Mr.. Todd and
associates, who have for several months
been III possession.
Judge Hinton thought Judge Holla-
day right throughout and that the appeal
should have been dismissed here as i'm
proyidently granted.
Judge Richardson declared that the
opinion of Judge Lacy was very able
and clear one for the doctrine contended
for, but for bis own part he insisted that
the true value Of piece OF property is
the price 1t will bring at fair sale by
auction and is not affected by subse-
quent circumstances. However, he pro-
missed to write ont his views later.
PARK-AvENUE LOTS.
Payne Us. Morris. From the Choncery
Court Of the city Of Richmond. Al
frmed, Judge Hinton Delivering the
Opinion; Judge Lacy Concurring in
the Result
In this case this Court decides that
Mrs. Charles Y. Morris had the right to
have sold. for reinvestment in more
lucrative real estate, certain unimproved
real estate on Park avenue.
The property in question was con-
veyed by G. Y. Morris to Patrick Henry
Aylett as trustee for Mrs. Morris and her
children, with the right to her to have
the investment changed. Mr.. Aylett
having died, K. G.. Morris was substi-
tuted as trustee, but when she wished
sale to be made Mrs. Morris appealed to
the Chancery Court of Richmond to exc
cute the trustand change the investment,
so that she could derive some income
therefrom. To the sale OF these lots Mrs.
Morris's two married daughters objected,
and hence the appeal to this Court.
The Supreme Court confirms Judge
Holiday in deciding that Mrs. Morris
could order the investment to be changed,
and that the objections of the two mar
ried daughters were of no avail.
AN oUsTED JUDGE.
Shumate rs. the Board Of Supervisors
of FduqUicr. Petition for a man
damus. Rule Nist Discharged and
Petition D,snlissed-JUdgeL LeIOiS De
Hvering the Opinion; J,tdge Fauntte-
ROY ConcurriRg in the Result.
w. B. G. Shumate was formerly judge
of Fauquier county. The two bouses of
the General Assembly by resolution and
for cause removed him. Mr.. Spilman
was then elected judge. Shumate
brought quO-Ud'TdntO proceedings
against Spilman, and the Circuit Judge
decided in favor of Spilman. Shu-
mate carried the case to the Supreme
Court. but it was never pushed to trial,
and the term for which Shumate WAS
elected having expired the case was dis
missed. So the judgment OF the Clr-
cuit Court stands. Now Shumate
comes with mandamus proceedings to
compel the county of Fauquier to pay
him 81, $50 OF salary alleged to be due:
Shumate alleges that lie was removed
without lawful notice that the resolu-
ton in question was not presented to the
Governor for approval that the pro-
cess taken was void because 1t was case
that could only have been acted upon by
impeachment.
Tho Supreme Court decides that the
case is res judicata.
OTHER CASES.
Corprew against Corprew. From the
Hastings Court of the city OF Ports
mouth. Affirmed, Judge Fauntleroy de-
liyeriDg opinion. -,
Savage against the Commonwealth.
From the Circuit Court OF Accomack
county. Reversed, Judge Lewis de-
livering opinion.
Roanoke National Bank against Farm
ers National Bank. From the Circuit
Court of Roanoke county. Affirmed,
Judge Fsuntleroy delivering opinion.
Chaffin against Lynch. Argued by
Thomas G. Jackson, Esq, for defendant
in error.
city Circuit Court.
The following cases were disposed OF
in this court yesterday:
William q. Smell rs. j. II. Griffith d
Co. Verdict for Sl20. Motion to set
aside the verdict overruled and Judg-
mont awarded by the Court.