Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-19
NAY BE TRIED AGAIN
This The Effect Of Two Decisions In the
LanshOvne Cases.
OTHER OPINIONS HANDED DOWN
Judge Lamb Sustained I'm N Case
Involving Special Partners LA
Many Writs of Error.

tauon growing out OF Richmond street.
ear accident.
The style OF the first case is Lang
horne, who sues by. &C.. VS.. the Rich
nond Railway Company in which the
Supreme Court. in March. 1894. reversed
he trial court. but granted a rehearins.
This was an action brought In the Cir
,uit Court OF Richmond against the
Richmond Railway Company. known also
Us the Richmond City Railway Company
Ind the Richmond Railway and Electric
Company, for an injury done by the
company frs, named. one Of the de-
,ondants Uhe record does not show
ShioD craved oyer and demurred to
he whole declaration. which contained
snly one count. and for an Injury al
eyed TO have been done by the Rich
nond. Railway Company.
The declaration recites various trans
actions by the said companies. the CITY
" Richmond. and the General Assembly
iffecting said companies, their rights.
privileges and liabilities. and AYERS lhat
he two first named became consolidated
NTH the Richmond Railway ana Flee
,ric Company with this proviso: Inc
foregoing conveyance is made subJtc' l"
The payment by the Richmond RailWay
and Electric Company Of all the ma
hlllties Of the party Of the first part
which may not have been dlsch"iBeu
prior TO this conveyance"
The defendant cravcd oyer or all me
writings mentioned in the declaration
and demurred. But this court holds 'hat
none OF these writings ought TO haN>
been. or could properly have been' con con,
fidered upon the demurrer. Inc pldlhth.
lid not claim under them. but mehuo,cu
hem by way Of introduction to o'her
matters that II was necessary 10 aver
In passing upon the demurrer ~
writings will not be considered. But was
lbere any mlstoinder OF causes OF action
N The form of action. and OF parties
The declaration states "A good cause OF
,ction against the Richmond halfway
Company. the Richmond city Kaii"ay
ron,nany. and the Richmond Raliwar
ind Electric Company. but the ueIeC'
N IL is in Joining them as ds1ehuan's,
rhey are not jointly liable. IheIe Il a
rood cause Of action against eaCh' en-
here Is "A misjoinder Of causes OF aS' ~
md Of parties. and the Juusneh' Va
,ourt sustaining the demurrer must
Affirmed.
LOWER COURT REVERSED
7, tho second case. growing out Of the
,ame accident. Langhorne. who sues ny
&c Us the Richmond city Railway 'oiii-
oanv. in which a verdict ana Jlusih nv.
80 awarded in favor of the Defendant
md which the Supreme court a''' =.
,jded In March. 1884, but allowed ~"
Fearing. there were several asSisHiiI'"e'
~ error. but only one was cohsiae'cu'
rhis was: Did the court below err IN ~,
iusinC the plaintiffs motion 10 aHi''i0
MS pleadings during the tfialt 49,.
rrbe defendant had introduced written
evidence TO show that the Richmohu
r,i,v Railway Company had bought tne
Richmond Railway Company VINO
VIBRATING the road at the tim the injuries
comulaiuei OF were sustained, anu
II was not liable for wrongs done Dy lid'
,ther corporation. -.
,rbe nlaintiff asked leave TO amend ms
aeclaration (Which did not aHege theH
isfutity). so as 70 put IN ISSUE the Pus'
ZION whether or not the two coinp"'lea
were one and the same corporation hno WI II
~, both names This court holds thdt the
declaration was defective. but that under
,be code of Virginia, 1884. the pialhtHl
ought 10 have been allowed 70 amend anu
raise the issue he desired. Therefore
the Judgment below reversed ana ne"
trial granted. -, ..,- no
As the evidence on next trial may DC
different. etc. IL is unnecessary 10 lA'SS
upon the other assignments OF tiIo'
based upon the courts giving ana Ie-
fusing instructions.
SUSTAINED JUDGE LAMB.
Judge Harrison prepared the opinion IN
the case Of the National Bank or NH-
yinia vs.. Cringan and others. rms was
a suit brought In the Chancery Court OF
Richmond TO make Forbes x Boyd as
secret partners Of Crigan & Trant, pay
, note for 5000. drawn by Cringan ana
endorsed by Trant. When the note was
first made Cringan * Trant had hol
really formed their partnership' ana II
was some time thereafter when FORBES
a BOYD were admitted. The note was
discounted by the plaintiff, ana repeater
lv renewed. Judge Lamb in an eiaDo,
rate opinion. held that Forbes q boyu
were not liable. and dismissed the plil;
The higher court adopts his opinion anu
afiirms his decree. 80
tn case OF Borst VS.. Nelson. in which
Judra Harrison delivered the opinion,
arose from a controversy I'm the Culpeper
Circuit Court about the price agreed 10
no Maid for a tract Of land, bought at a
commissioners sale. Mrs. Borst con-
tended that she bought 1t for $500 per
acre. gave her bonds. and pald part II,
cash. and that the sale was cohilfiile1
by the court But this sale was eduseN
nv the failure Of her husband TO com
~, ,,i,b the terms OF his previous pur-
chase OF the land. In a suit In equity
thought by her, the court entered ue
crea Tor the amount due by her husband
and this decree is affirmed.
WAS HIS OWN FAULT.
President Keith announced the court
secision I'm Cochran VS.. the Richmoh'
and Allegheny Railroad Company. Inn
road was sold, subject 90 certain lncuIh
FRANCES. and purchased by the Chesa
oeake and Ohio, who paid INTO cour
cash enough to pay certain James Rive
and Kanawha canal bonds. Messrs, -,
ben and Smith. as counsel ciaiiheu az
aitional compensation Tor extra SCI ~
!, hehalf OF the canal company. Inc
"a ,ncir r.fition 20 the Circuit Court o
pichmond 10 obtain this addiuonh lee
ana met great Oppo2ltiOn. Cochran 90
,ec,ed 10 lta being paid out OF the cas-
ia inc han1e 81 che court ana the con
,eoucncr Vas that the money lay thsr
idls wbllst the debts which II was I
nv or were bearing interest. ThouB
,ufhcisnt at the time the court receive
4, n dd not continue TO be. Cochra
sisl,,ed FUN interest upon the amount du
Mo. In the mean time he borroWe
som the court - per cent. OF his claim
poth courts held that. as he had cause
he DELAY and attendant loss Of intercs
ne should not take advantage OF his ow
grong. and the Supreme Court turne
mis- loan into a payment as or the DAT
of the loan and allowed him interes
pnly up 10 the time the money was pa!
into court.
CARPENTERS LIEN CASE.
Judge Cardwell wrote the opinion 4
Rison IS. Moon. which case grew on
of "a contract made by Rison, as truste
and agent Of his wiie. for repairs an
improvements upon the Rlvanna mills. 4
fluNanna county. by one Bateman.
After various delays, failures. and a
attempted arbitration. one kellar. sub
contractor and Batem0n filed carpen
trrs lien upon the mills and assigned
- Moon who fled his bin TO enforce q
The commissioners report though -
cepted TO. was sustained 10y the Cour
who overruled his demurrer 10 the bill
and entered 81 decree against RisOn an
wife This judgment the Supreme Coul
sfirmS
In bcale's administrator vs. Gordon I
al. opinion by Judge Cardwcl. the on
question was whether the rule OF r.
sdJudicata applied 10 the case. Their
were a number Of suits growing out ,
acts OF $. +. g. Beale. as Treasurer {
Fauouier county. which involved h
yureties, OF whom Gordon was one. II
court below held that IN one Of thci
nuts the matter sought by this preseI
,na had been fudicialIy determined an