Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-10
QUESTIONS OF LAW.
the SUPREME COURT DECIDES sEvs-
RAJ CASES OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
title 70 Manchester Lots-Insnrance on
Damaged Tobacco--Fiuvsnns Gold
Nines--City Liable for Damages

The Court of Appeals yesterday decided
tho case OF Brown rs Butler and others on
an appeal from the Hastings Court OF
Manchester. Judge Lewis delivering the
opinion.
The urinary object Of the suit was to
subject certain lots, situate in Manchester,
10 the alleged lien Of three judgments re-
covered many years ago against Joseph
Butler, now deceased. These judgments
we're obtained soon after the late war;
and were duly docketcd. Upon two OF
them no executions we're ever issued, and
tho Court of Appeals sustained the ruling
of the lower court that they were barred
BY the statute Of limitations.
SOLD AT AUCTION.
The most OF the lots in question were
sold by Butler NJ public auction through
the firm Of Grubbs a Williams, Of this
city, in December 1868, and the purchasers
were put into possession. but received no
deeds therefor until after the judgments
were obtained.
Butler. who was by trade q carpenter
And bridge-builder. left Manchester, his
place of residence. some time after the
rendition Of the Judgment. seeking en-
ployment nj his trade. He had previously
lived unhsppilv with his wife. whom to-
gether with the rest of his family he left
In Manchester where they have ever since
continued 10 reside. He visited various
cities and States Of the Union. working at
his calling, after his departure from Man.
chester. and died recently in Baltimore,
where for q number of years before his
death he spent the most of his time. lie
occasionally returned TO Manchester,
which be continued TO regard as his nome,
and was expected home SO his daughter
testified" just before his death"
DEBATING WITHOUT THE STATE.
Under these circumstances 1t was held
that his absence from the state dId
not suspend the running OF the statute OF
limitations, and therefore that the two
judgments which had not been kept awe
by the issuance Of executions were barred
"Departing without the State" within the
meaning of the statute. said the Court, IS
n removal from the State with the inten-
tion 10 change ones residence" and the
burden Of proving such intention. 1t was
held, rs upon the party alleging IL. ,
AS 10 the third judgment IN favor OF the
late Arm Of William B. Jones Co.; whlch
The Court found had been kept alive by
The issuance Of an execution of fd In
1867. il was held that the purchasers were
protected by the principle decided IN
Floyd rs Harding, % Grattan's Reports,
l01 That is to say. that the auctioneers'
memorandum, made at the time Of the
sales in December, 1865. was not such
"contract IN writing" as by the registry
acts is required 10 be recorded; and, fur
thermore, that the purchasers, who took
visible and notorious possession ana PAID
nil the purchase-moDey before notice,
actual or constructive, of the judgments
we're complete purchasers" and as such
had superior equities 10 the plaintiffs IN
the judgment last above mentioned. j.,
A r NlA ltrQt trfF
missing the plaintiffs bill was accordingly
affirmed.
Insurance on Tobacco.
Judce Lacy delivered the opinion Of the
Court in the case of the Wytheville In
surance and Banking Company against
stultZ, which was an appeal from the
Judgment of the Circuit Court OF the coun-
Nv Of Henry and involved several questions
fraught with interest to persons engaged
in the insurance business.
IL appeared from the record that Mr.. L.
y. Stultz, of Henry county. took out an
insurance policy on lot of manufactured
tobacco which was stored in barn or fac
tory on his place, and that the ninth night
after the policy was issued the building
and contents were destroyed by fire. The
company refused TO settle the claim and
suit was brought in the Henry Circuit
Cont. where Judgment was recovered by
writ of error from the Supreme Court, and
now that tribunal refuses to interfere with
the ruling of the lower court and athrms
the decree.
THE POINT OF CONTENTION.
The case involves many questions, a
number of them purely technical. but the
principal one upon which the whole pro-
ceeding hinged was whether or not IT Is
incumbent upon person when having
property insured TO give information not
called for by the questions contained In
the insurance blanks and asked by the
agent. 80
The company in this case claimed that
the tobacco insured was sour, unSound,
and not salabie, and that Stultz did not so
inform the insurer; that Information was
withheld which was essential. and that the
insurance was placed under false i'm
preston. Stress was also laid on the fact
that ON the night of the fire StultZ was
away from home, and being informed that
his tobacco-house was burning did not &c
home or manifest any interest whatever IN
the matter. The further charge was made
that the house in which the tobacco was
stored was not q factory, as the insurer
had been led to believe.
Stultz, on the other hand, declared that
his tobacco had value and was not souI
and unstable as alleged; that 1t was
stored in such place as he had represent
ed; that when the fire occurred he was al
the house of his brother.in-law, where hi'
wife was staying; that the night was IN
element and he did not go to the flre fol
two reasOns-because he was suffering
with tonsiltis, disease that exposur,
would have aggravated, and be was told
that the tobbacco-house would be In ashes
before he could get there.
THE COURTS RULING,
The Court, in Judge Lacys elaborate
opinion, held that the insured gave ali the
information that the law contemplated
that the insurer was supposed 10 know
what information was wanted ana 10 ash
such questions rs would bring TINS GU
without expecting the person beng insured
TO volunteer Just the facts wanted. Tit
position was also taken that an incorrec
statement as to the value OF property OF
fered for insurance would not vltlate
poiicy unless 1t is clearly shown that thu
false representation is made with fraudu
lent intent
DISSENTING VOICE.
judge Richardson dissented aud made
brief statement, in which he said IN
views differed widely from those of In
associates. II was established, to his On
tire satisfaction, that the tobacco II
question was not sound or saleable. I'm
mediately after It's manufacture sampl
was sent to New York house. who r.
turned IL, saying tnaI lucy couiu W
nothing with such goods. IL was thel
sent TO a Washington firm, who handles
damaged tobacco. and they likewise re
ported that they could do nothing with II
Judge Richardson said he was convince'
That the tobacco was rotten and shoul'
not have been offered for insurance.
A Question OF Contract.
The Circuit Court of Fluvanna count
was reversed in the case of Edichal Bulhol
Company Il ais. against the Columoi
Gold Mining Company, IN which Judg
Fauntleroy delivered the unanimous opin
ION Of the Court. This action was on tn
petition of the Edichal Company and J. Il
Baker. j. w. Woodside, and nj. Il. Kirk
patrick, as individuals. who representa-
that they were aggrieved and injured b
the decree rendered 10y the Fluyanna Cir
cui. Court, April u, 1899, in the CHANGER
cause in which the Columbia Gold-Mnin
Company was complainant and the pet