Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-03-31
GRANTED THE WRIT.
THE CLARK CASE TO BE HEARD IN
The SUPREME COURT.
A Importsnt Note SOFT pecided--The
Thomas Corators' Fees 20 Come out
OF Money ON Deposit


wealth. In the latter case the appellant /
was recently tried in the Corporation |
Court Of Danville for the murder Of Rev. |
j. X. Moffett. He was found guilty Of |
voluntary manslauehter and sentenced 20 |
the penitentiary for Ave years. A number |
OF exceptions were made TO the rulings OF !
the lower court, and 1t is upon these that |
the case comes 10 the supreme Court OF /
Appeals. II Is very likely that II Will be !
heard during this term OF the court. The
record IN the case ~ very voluminous ana I
the printing alono will cost about $500.
The Cottren Note Suit
The case Of Cottrell against Charles T. |
watkins and others, which was also De I
clded yesterday by the court. was. as Judge /
Richardson. VINO delivered the opinion IN /
the case. remarked one of the highest im- /
portance IN the commercial world.
The facts are briefly these; In 1874 /
Joseph Cottrell was indebted to the Glover I
Hill Railway Company IN the sum OK 4
1880 and WAS unable TO pay hls debt. In /
order TO help him his brother. John W. !
COttrell. drew his notes tor the amount |
and executed deed OF trust on !
his real estate in Henrco 10 secure them. !
As the notes matured money was fur |
nlshed Joseph Cottrell, the debtor, TO take |
up the notes. which he did, keeping the |
notes IN his possession and not turning I
them over to his brother. He retained |
these notes some ten years after maturity |
and then passed them 20 the defendant |
Charles T. Watkins. With whom 10 had /
some business dealings. and Watkins ~ /
structed the trustees. John :. WISE anu l. |
VI. Logan, 10 sell the property conveyed TO |
them by John W. COttrel to secure these |
notes.
SOLD THE PROPERTY.
In pursuance with these Instructions the |
trust ees offered the property for sale at /
ot,I Wafkfns himself DO /
csme the purchaser for $500. SUIT was |
then brought by john W. Cottrell IN the |
Circuit Court of llenrlcO to sex aside tho |
deed made by Wise and Logan, trustees,
TO Watkins on the ground tha. the notes
being missed to Watkins after maturity |
passed 10 him subject 10 all the equities
existing between the parties and that as
they had been taken up at maturity they
were extingulshel and could not be re-
issued so as 10 bind tho parties or Keep
alive the deed of trust securing them; ana
alleging further that Watkins had been
notified that the notes had been PAD
al maturity. demurrer was MED
TO the hill bv counsel for the de-
Pendants on the ground, among others,
that accommodation notes are not sub
jcct 10 the rule TINT others are, ana mat
inasnuch as accommodation parties hold
themselves ont TO the world TO he b0und
they aro not subject 20 the equities. such
rs previous payment. even If passed AFTER
maturity. They quoted the case OF DAVIS
rs. Miller II Grattan. pp.. 8. g.. IN when
Judge MonCure saws that TINS distinction
IS drawn IN favor of accommodation notes
and that they can he passed NJ any time
after maturity without being subject any
equities.
SUBJECT TO ALL EQUITIES.
The Court in this case overrules this and
states the law IN Virginia 20 be that ac-
COmmodation notes pass subject TO al the
equities after their maturity. me deinur-
rer TO the bill, which was sustained by the
Circuit Court OF HenricO, IL oyerluled. "a
ARE all the objections raised by the defend
ants 10 the rehet PRAYED for. and the case
j. sent back with instructions 70 alloW II
10 proceed according to tho relief asked IN
the hll. Tho case Is of Importance. IN
that II ~. strange To say, tne hrst case IN
Virginia. LAYING down IN plain terms the
law affecting accommodation notes ana
nlacinc them on 10 higher plane after
Their maturity than that occupied by |
notes given for value.
There are other questions Of minor I'M
portance tut Of some interest to lawyers.
decided IN this case. the chef of which IS
that the principle Of tdcheS will not be al
lowed to apply ia equity until or before
the statute of limitations furnishes bar
Il the relief asked for
Mr. J. H. Webb Peploo was counsel for
the plaintiffs in the court below and tor
peal aud Messrs. Thomas Nelson Page. L.
y. Carter. and W. y. DeSaussure for the
defendants AID appellees.
Must COME Out Of the Deposit.
The second case Of Thomas's admins
traitor against Bette Thomas Lewis aud
others, involving the payment OF the ices
oi the curators. Mann ;. Quaries and the
late w. Il. Qusrles, amounting TO S5,gQO,
was decided by "a divided court Inc |
INDIGNANT nf the lOgar C0Urt the Chance !
~ Court of Richmond. providing that |
this sum should be paid ont OF the TlIOOJ |
on deposit at the Planters National Bank,
which. under the former decision OF the |
court, was awarded to the heirs-at-la OF |
the late ". A. Thomas, IS affirmed.
MIR Henry q. Cannon was counsel for |
the Messrs Quarles. Messrs. Staples Il |
Munford represented the administrator, |
and Judges Christian and Waddiil APP
peared for Bette Lewis
TINS ends one OF the most celebrated |
cases that has figuredln the Virginia courts |
il recent years.
Another Chance for His Life.
The most novel case of the dav was that |
OF Jesse Mitchell (colOred) against the |
Commonwealth. This came ~ on writ |
of error to the judgment Ct the County |
Court of Amelia, rendered March Il, 1872. |
sentencing Mitchell to death tor an as !
sault upon JAMIE Thraves a white girl IL |
years OF age. The first bill of exception |
was to the action of the lower court IN |
overruling the prisoners motion to quash |
the second or new renlre tdcGS anu the !
return thereto. because IT was signed |
Nv. l.. Coleman. Deputy Sheriff" The |
Supreme Court states that this exception |
was we'll taken, 0s such deputy |
should have subscribed to the return !
his own name and that OF his principal /
as well. The second bill was unimportant |
and 80 characterized by the opinion. but /
tho third a fha acTlnn of the lower /
court IN refusing to set aside lts verdict !
for an error apparent upon the record.
THIS objection was that the record OF the |
Indictment and proceedings had IN the
County Court, where the prisoner was IN
dicted and where on hls arrangement he |
demanded to be tried in the Circuit Court,
were not certified to the Circuit Court by
the Clerk, as required by Statute 3i.Ol6. |
Code 1887, and that therefore the Circuit |
Court was without jurisdiction to try the
prisoner. The opinion IN the case declares
that this objection also was well taken. II
reeites that when person is demanded
IRON county court the clerk thereof
shall certify and transmit to the clerk of
tho court IN which such person ~ 10 be
tried. transcript OF the record OF !
the proceedings aud copies OF the
indictment, recognlZances, and other
papers connected with the case.
Such, IL seems, was not done in this case
because the same person was clerk OF both
courts. This. however. is a case in which
the Clerk OF the County Court aud the
Clerk OF the Circuit Court are IN law two
distinct individuals. The Supreme Court re-
verses the judgment OF the lower court on
these technicalpolnts and remands the case
20 the County Court for further proceed
ings IN accordance with the views contain
ed IN The opinion.
Other Supreme Court Cases.
Hawthorne against Beckwith. From the
Circuit Court of Brunswick county. Re-
versed. Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Epes against Williams. From Circuit
Court Of Nottoway county. Reversed,
Judge Lacy delivering opinion.
Vaughan, &c. against Moore and others.
From the Circuit Court of Grayson coun-
y. Reversed. Judge Fsuntleroy deliver
Inc opinion.
Combs against Commonwealth. Writ OF
error and supersedeas allowed TO q judg-
nent rendered by the Circuit Court Of
Carroll county on tie 18th OF November.
1892. Affirming a judgment of the County
- -