The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-03

y
sold such other portion 4 court Of equity
would require the owner Of the easement
so as to impose the burden upon the
NIorisetts. and 10 exonerate the plaintiffs
g. The trustee. having advertised 10 sell
for cash for a sum not due, was In excess
of his powers.
Campbell & Co vs. Angus & co. From
the Circuit Court Of Powhatan county.
Affirmed. opinion by Judge Rely.
This was an action OF assumpsit' ana
only matters OF pleading are decided.
Held. l. Defects IN bill OF particulars
cannot be taken advantage OF by dtm"r-
ring TO the declaration. II sufficient
bin Of particulars be not filed. the Court
will require II TO be done on application,
or. II not done. 10 exclude evidence OF
any matter not sufficiently described 10
give notice OF its nature and character.
Barton's Law Practice, 5G-5S, Is West
Va, 400; p Id, 36S.
? II Is not error 10 admit evidence
tending 70 show transactions H. sterling
mnoey when the declaration alleges IN
debtedness i'm domestic money. The decla-
ration may allege Indebtedness IN steiilns
money. leaving its value In domestic
money 10 be ascertained 10y the jury
Va. Code sec 2sl6-cr may state Indebted
ness to be IN foreign money OF the value
of so much domestic money-which Two
latter WAYS are the more correct method
Rob. Pract., Vol. H., PIP 49, 49,
> The genuineness of the drafts ahl
acceptances not having been questioned
I'm the tria. court. that question cannot
be raised here.
, TO admit copies Of letters from
plaintiff 10 defendant without notice 10
produce the originals is irregular anu
improper. yet If not TO the de'rihehl
OF the defendant, the remaining testimony
being ample 10 maintain the plalhlh
case. il is not sufficient evidence 10 set
aside verdict and judgment. - 1rdll'
20. > Hen. a Mum, %.
T. In ordinary dealings factor must
obey his principals orders as to prices
and sales but If he advances on the
goods and demands payment, he may
sell and reimburse himself If his advance
ments be not returned. lie the has a spe-
cial property I'm the goods. and right
to sell follows therefrom.
g. The general issue having been plead
ed. IL is not error 10 exclude special
plea II the same evidence be admissible
under the former as the latter.
Dashiell vs.. Merchants and Planters
Bank From the Chancery Court Of the
City of Richmond. Reversed. opinion by
Judge CardWell.
This case involves mainly a question
of the weight OF evidence.
Held The possession Of a note not
marked paid" is prima facie proof OF
its ownership by the holder. and puts the
burden OF proof upon the complainant
10 show that such holder IS wronefully
I'm possession OF IL: and such proof as
in all cases Of alleged fraud. must be by
clear and satisfactory evidence.
Nyitz. Bicdler & Co. VS.. Fife and ais.
From the Circuit Court Of Orange Coun-
~. Reversed; opinion by Judge Buchan-
en-.
Two Fites and Levins executed two
promisory notes 10 w. b. & CO., on which
action was brought. Defendants fled
two special pleas. enc setting out that
the Fites. after the notes became due.
executed two writings under seal pay
able to w. y. * Co. for the Identical
detts which were accepted by them, and
by reason of such acceptance the original
notes were fully satisfied. The other plea
was substantially the sameA except that
they alleged the sealed writings were ex-
ecuted before the notes were due.
Plaintiffs objected 10 the filing OF the
pleas; overrUled. and exceptions.
1ldlntlIS tnen Ileu special TepucdllOUS
averring that the sealed writings were
delivered and accepted as collateral Sc
curity only for the original notes, and not
In satisfaction or by way OF merger. and
with the assent OF the Fites and at the
special request OF Levins. Defendants
dc INJURED TO the replications: demurrer
sustained, and another bill OF keep
tons.
The question raised is whether a simple
contract debt is merged into a higher
security given for the same debt 10 the
same creditor by portion OF the same
debtors. although agreed by the parties
when given that the higher security
al ould be taken only as collateral. and no.
In satisfaction OF the debt
Held. l. II the higher security shows
upon its face that IL was executed for
the same debt: that II was not taken
in satisfaction OF the simple contract,
but in addition TO or collateral TO II. there
Is no merger. II II shows on It's face
that Il was executed for the same debt.