Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-02-03

Oue Vi lut uOSG Interesting CASTS
which has been before the Court of APP
peals in long while was that of Craig
against VIM. White & Co., which came
up on an appeal from decree Of the
Circuit Court of Franklin county. The
unanimous opinion of the court was on
Thursday delivered by Judge Lacy.
One of the questions arising in the
case was whether an attachment in
chancery could be made returnable to a
rule day, or whether it was necessary
to make the same returnable to term
of the court. In the opinion of the court
as delivered by Judge Lacy, attach
ments, both at law and in equity, by
the express provisions of the statute
could be made returnable only to a
term of the court, and the attachments
in this case, having been made returna-
BILE to rule day, were illegal and void,
and for that reason ought to have been
dismissed by the lower court.
Another question arising in the case
was whether the Court of Appeals had
jurisdiction of all the attachments there
being a large number of them), and in
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, az
fecting the validity OF the mortgage, a
reversal in part, or as to one of the ap-
pellants, necessarily reversed the entire
decree.
The most important question invol-
we'd in the case, however, was as TO the
validity Of mortgage executed and
recorded in the State of South Caro-
lima. The property embraced in the
mortage was afterwards removed, or
brought into the State Of Virginia but
the mortgage was not recorded anew
in the latter State, and it was claimed
that the mortgage was therefore invalid
as to the attaching creditors.
The court was of the opinion that
there is no statute in Virginia which
requires the recordation of q mortgage
hero in this State executed in another
State, and duly recorded there, upon
property situated at the time of the eX-
eculion of the mortgage in such State,
and subsequently removed to the State,
of Virginia. There being no such
statute in force in Virginia the solution
of the question turned upon the rale
relating to the comfy of States.
Judge Lacy said that it is we'll set
tied law by great array of authorities
that in such case the mortgage is valid
against creditors and purchasers, al
though not recorded in the State to
which the property is removed.
The opinion is very able one and
involves discussion of many interest
ing principles of law. The amount of
property involved is very large.
The decree of the Circuit Court was
reversed and decree entered for the
appellants.
In the case of Michael against the
Roanoke Machine Works upon a writ
of error to a judgment of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke, the unanimous opin-
ion of the Court of Appeals was deliv-
cred by Judge Lewis. In this case
Michael had brought suit for the re-
coyery of damages against the Roanoke
Machine Works occasioned by the loss
of an arm, due, as he alleged, to the
negligence of the company. There
was demurrer to the evidence. The
jury rendered a verdict of $4,000 dam
ages in favor of Michael, subject to the
opinion of the court upon the demur-
rer. upon which the Circuit Court en-
tered Judgment for the defendant.
Judge Lewis's opinion contains an
interesting and able discussion of the
law relating to the duties and obliga-
liens of master and servant, or employ
er and employee. The Court TT, of APP
pesls unanimously reversed the judg-
mennt CT the lower court, and entered a
Judgment for Michael, the plaintiff in
error.