Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-12-09
CAN SUE TOGETHER.
THE SUPREME COURT so DECIDES
IN A LAND COMPANY CASE.
H.A Interests of stockholders Being
1dontica, They May Unite In 0ne
Bni-othcr Decisions.

One OF the most important opinions rem
dered in the Supreme Court OF Appeals OF
Virginia in some time was that delivered
on yesterday in the case of four Of the gen.
eral stockholders of the Richmond and
HaIrisopburg Land Company against the
company andi its promoters and against the
receiver appointed to collect the dues OF
the plaintiffs. The effect OF the decision
IL that in future stockholders Of corpo-
ration having a common complaint and
desiring q common relief can sue Jointly
for IT, VERY recently various courts
throughout the State have entered DEGREES
IN favor of tho defendant companies IN
similar cases.
The opinion in this cause was prepared
by Judge Lacy and concurred IN 10y all
members Of the bench except Judge Him.
ton, who. however. did concur IN the re-
suit.
TIE BILL ALLEGED FRAUD.
The bin Of the plaintiffs in this case
sought 10 have their subscription contract
SET aside and aunulled on the ground OF
fraud, in the procurement OF when CON
tract fraud was alleged by the bill TO have
been perpetrated by false prospectus
and false statements, circulars, and cards,
the same representations being used to-
wards all the parties plaintiff and all the
general stockholders beng situated to-
ward the company and its promoters In
exactly the same way.
The bill was fled by heplaintihs on be-
half Of themselves and all of the general
stockholders situated in the same way VINO
should choose TO come IN and contribute
20 the expenses and partake OF the dement's
of the suit. IN
The defendants demurred to the bill
upon the ground of the misloinder OF par
ties. and the Circuit Court Of Rockingham
sustained the demurrer upon tins express
ed ground, whereupon the plaintlns ap-
pealed.
TIE DECREE REVERSED.
The Supreme Court reversed the decree
of the Rockingham Circuit Court ana helu
that the parties plaintiff and those SUNG
Jointly with them could Jointly MAINTAIN
their suit, because there was community
of interests among the plalntihs IN the
subject matter In suit and IN the fenei
soucbt. and the same identical means had
been employed against them all III order
to perpetrate the fraud, upon the aliega~
tiOns OF the bill, Whlcn Is thheh ~ NC ~ uO
upon demurrer
The Court. however. only passed upon
the point winch had been acted upon by
the Circuit Court of Rockingham, renuer-
lug no opinion upon the merits OF the case
and REMINDING il to the lower tribunal 10
be heard upon It's merits.
The counsel IN this suit were: or the
appellants. L. II. Mcclure, and for the APP
pellees, h. T. Crump.
OTHER sUPREMR-CoURT CASES.
In the case Of BowIes against Brauer, Ct ais,
Judge Lewis rendered the opinion anrming the
dertsion OF the Chansery Court OF Richmond.
This was suit 90 set aside sale ana 10 cancer
n decd made by james Is. Elau trustee. ~ was
stipulated in the deed Of trust that IN the event
of a sale the same should be advertised nVe Gays
IN some Richmond paper The advertisement
was inserted five times, including the DAY OF
sale which was Tuesday. March l, 1891. Inc
question involved In the case was whether the
sale wss sufficiently advertised, as sunday IN
terveued aud there WAS no publication OF the
paper on Monday. The Court held that the SAFE
was properly advertised
Burch 4 Co. against HyltOn Dalton Il Co.
From the Circuit Court OF LOudOun county.
Affirmed, Judge FsuntlorOy delivering the opln-
ion. ,,,,. -.
OF Shenandoah county. Affirmed, Judge Hinton
delivering the opinion.
Mershall6 Moncure against Saunders 4 Son.
From the ChaHce.y Court OF Richmond. Al
nrmed by an eve ly divided court, Judge Lacy
not sitting.
Robinson against Robinson. Former opinion
adhered 10 and same decree entered.
Whiting against town OF West Point. Answer
90 rule nled.
Gardner aganat Strstton. Argued by John
rutherford, Esd. for appellant and Caskie u
Coleman for appellees.