Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-02-02
ROAD LAW INVALID.
THE SUPREME COURT so DECIDES IN
THE PROFFITT CASE.
a Clear Opinion M To the Recordafi"n OF
Mortgages and Removal Of Property
Other Controversies Settled.

The case OF Craig against William White
/ & Co. was decided in the Supreme Court
OF Appeals yesterday. This controversy
| tas been Interesting from the start AM
4 the opinion. which was prepared b. 'ucge
Lacy, wls concurced in by The wh0ie
court.
The case came up OF az APPEAL f;om
decree Of .he circuit Court Of Frankih
county ana one OF the rlain questions
arising was whe;hc- an Attachment III
| chanccry cOuli be made reiurnahie 10 Il
| rule day. or vhsth;- l. was nece"+ary 10
make the same rctlrEable TO t"lhh Vi
the court. The opinion OF the court vas
| that attachments both at law ana IN
! oouity bv the express provisions OF the
statute could be made rcturnable only 10
a form of the court, and that the attach
/ meuts in this case, having been made re-
| turnalle 70 a rule day. were illegal anu
| void. and for that reason ought To- nave
/ been dismissed by the lower court.
VALIDITY or \ MORTGAGE.
Tn. most important question in the
case was as to the validity of mort
gage executed and record I'll in the S'iie
of South Carolina. The properly covered
ly the mortgage was dIteFWtIlS ! 'Hi"NVu
I to the state OF NlEiillis FhA - '."' 'f-'Nr
! was not recorded anew IN this Std-'. IL
was. therefore. claimed that tn :npIt-
gage was invalid as to the auathii'B
creditors. -. -,
was no statute in Virginia recurring re-
COrdatOn Of mortgage III thl' r'ati
already executed and duly recorded IN
another State upon property Iccdteu At
he time uf the execution N SUCH state
and subsequently removed 20 virginia.
There being no such statute IN force, The
question then hinged upon the cue le-
Iafiug to the comfy of states. IN FEch
q case the mortgage. according 20 ~"
decision Of the supreme Court, - "ahd
against creditors and purch lsars. although
the mortgage bc not recoriri III Tie sIate
t. which the property had been r"Inprcd
Ncssrs. Staples and Nuniprl and sam
ucl Anderson were counsel cor tn drrcl-
Iants. and MIR Kean. Of LynchburS, was
the representative before the court Of the
appellee.
MICHAEL GETS GIG DAMAGES.
In the case Of Michael against the I:oa-
noke Machne-W Works, which came from
the Hastings Court of Roanoke. the
judgment Of the lower tribunal WIS -
Vcis"d. The result Of this decision - to
award 10 Michael damages amounting TO
$500 for loss OF one Of bis arms VINE
an employee Of tho ndchine-w)rks Jdige
Lewis. who prepared thc opinion. as
cusscs clearly and at some length in ne
opinion the relations between employer
and employee.
THE ROAD LAW UNCONSTiTU-
TtONAL.
one Of the most important opinions
handed down yesterday was that in the
case Of Profitt against Anderson. Sheriff
Of Louisa county rhc ficts ih the case
seem to be that W. +. Profiitt refused 10
work On the roads as prescribed bv lt~,
and v's arrested and lined II bv 4 JuS-
ticc Of the Peace. He refused 10 ply me
fine. and was accordingly arrested and
placed III custody. He appealed To The
County Court of Louisa. which decided
that the fine was legal. and ordered ihat
it BE- paid. or that Proiiitt be requii ed 10
work the fine and costs out At the rate
of - cents per day. lie then pe'rionGi
the supreme Court for writ Of hah"%5
corpus to be- released from custody upon
the ground that the law was uncpns;itu-
tiOnal The Supreme Court granted the
writ Of habeas corpus.
This decision practically annuls the
present road law of the state OF Virginia.
which requires that every citizen srall