The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-02-02
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Heavy Damages Against the Roanoke Ma.
chine Understanding Interesting
About the Present Road Laws.

william White & Co., which came upon
an appeal from q decree OF the Circuit
Court OF Franklin county. The unanl-
nous opinion Of the court was delivered
by Judge Lacy.
one OF the questions arising in the case
was whether an attachment In chancery
could be made returnable 10 Il rule day,
or whether it was necessary TO make the
same returnable to a term Of the court.
In the opinion OF the court as delivered
by Judge Lacy. attachments. both at law
and IN equity. by the express provisions .
of the statute could be made returnable
only TO term of the court and the at
tachments in this case, having been made
returnable to rule day. were Illegal and
void. and for that reason ought 10 have
been dismissed by the lower court.
Another question arising In the case was
whether the Court Of Appeals had Juris-
dictiOn Of all the attachments there being
a large number OF them, and IN some
Of them the amount involved being less
than 500. while others largely exceeded
that sum. The court held on this point
that the decree of the lower court being
an entire decree. affecting the validity OF
the mortgage, a reversal in part, or as
versed the entire decree.
The most important question involved
in the case. however, was as 10 the Naliu
ity Of a mortgage executed ana recoraeu
i'm the State Of South Carolina. Inc prop
erty embraced in the mortgage was atter-
wards removed, or brought into the Sta'e
of Virginia; but the mortgage was not
recorded anew in the latter State, ana
II was claimed that the mortgage was
therefore invalid as to the attaching
creditors. 49,. 49,
ie no statute IN Virginia which requires
The recordation of a mortgage here In
his State executed in another State, ana
duly recorded there, upon property STU
ated at the time Of the execution OF lne
mortgage i'm such state, ana subsequently,
removed to the State OF Virginia. mere
being no such statute in force IN VIZ
oini., tho solution of the question turned
upon the rule relating to the comfy oi
States. o..,oa
Judge Lacy said that il is wen settieo
law bv n great array Of authorities ina,
in such case the mortgage Is Nahd against
creditors and purchasers although hot -1
corded i'm the state to which the properly
is removed.
rhe oDinion is very able one ana IN
wolves "a discussion Of many interesting
principles OF law. The amount or property
involved is very large.
The case was deliberately argued 10y
usssrs. STAPLES and Sanford and Samuel
! Anderson for the appellants ana Dy MI
Kean, Of Lynchburg. for the appehee'
ano de,rea az the Circuit Court WAS re-
versed and a decree entered for the ap-
pellants.
Michael Gets $4,000.
In the case Of Michael against the Roa-
noke Machine Works upon writ or error
10 a Judgment OF the Circuit court OF
| Roanoke. the unanimous opinion OF 'ie
Court Of Appeals was Delivered Dy
1udse Lewis. In this case Mchael had
t'ro,,,,,, = suit for the recovery OF damages
AGAINST the Roanoke Machine w oIhS o.
c9sioned by the loss of an arm due as
no alleged. 20 the negligence OF the conn
many. There was a demurrer TO the evil
/ do,ce The Jury rendered a verdict OF
| $1,000 damages in favor OF Michael, SUD
| DOT 70 the opinion of the court upon the
/ de,ntirrer. upon which the Circuit Court
| entered Judgment for the defendant
Judge Lewis opinion contains an inter
| esting and able discussion OF lhe Ia"
relating to the duties and oDlSdtlohs
| of master and servant or employer
| and emplove. The Court OF APP
DeaIs unanimously reversed the JudS-
ment of the lower court. and entered a
Judgment for Michael, the plalnun III
error. ,n.
rhe case was argued before the court
nv Staples and Munford and Abram =.
Staples for the plaintiff In error ana py
watts and Griffin for the defendant III
error.
The Road Laws Imperfect
A, iroportant decision rendered by the
sunreme Court yesterday was tnat Oh
proait against Anderson. sheriff OF Louisa
w. f. Profit refused to work on th'
roads as prescribed by law, and was
arrested and fined 81 by justice OF 'h'
peace. He refused 10 pay ne uh'' an, ~
" accordingly arrested and placed IL
custody at Louisa. He appea'td 10 VA
county Court of Louisa Whlch usclue'
that the fine was legal ana orueieu ma
4, he Maid or that Profit be required u
-, tLa fine and costs out at the rat
~ X cents per day. He then petitione'
tba Sunrarne Court for Writ OF haDe@
INNS IN he released from custody upoi
,ha oround that the law was unconsutu
.ta,ai rhe Supreme Court granted III
habeas corpus ~. ,,,,l- .h
,,,.asent road law of the State OK virgin,
rvbich REQUIRES that every Slli%-" -.
vorx three days in each year upon IN
nnhlic roads. or employ someone III III
ed The action Of the supreme |oui
shorefore makes it necessary Tor III
nYesent road laws to be revised.
Oih.r Cases.
o,bor Eases were decided as follows:
Rison against Newberry, from Clrcul
Court of Wythe county Reversed Juus
Iacv delivering opinion.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Compah
AGAINST McGavock's administrator. roi
circ,,it Court OF Wythe county. Aihrine'
Iuaee Fauntleroy delivering opiiio'
judge Lacy dissented. -, .
Roners against Commonwealth, Ho'
the corperation Court Of Norlolk cl''
Affirmed Judge Faunteroy celiVerln
= oninlon. Judge Lacy concurring IN u
=, results. ,eo., ~
y swann against Housemann' from II
emit Court OF BotetoCrt county. keVers'
| In mart and affirmed IN part Judge III
d ton delivering opinion. r..
|. Richmond and DanVille Railroad cor
4 many against DeButts. Petition 20 rene
I deriei. ~, 49,.
/. Tnrfolk and Wes'ern Railroad Compaf
r aoainst Phelps. Cause put on privilege
y docket. -,
: ,aof allowed 10 decree OF the Circuit Cou
OF Rockingham county. pronounced
18th April. 1873.
S.omrnonweaIth against Johnson, al
same against Davis & Co. Motion to oil
x miss submitted.