Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-20
AS TO EXTRA WATER
WAS A DISSATISFIED VICTIM.
This the view Held I'm One of the
L.nd-Boom Cases-Buyer Of , imber
Entitled to the L0ps-Other Opin-
ions Rendered Yesterday.


ticaIlv closed I'D its record for 1888 with
Yesterdays brief sitting. and there Will
he no further business until after the
holidays.
Opinions we're handed down yesterday
In the following cases:
Stearn's Exec ltor VS.. Richmond Paper
Manufacturing Company. opinion py
Judge Harrison
This appeal involves the construction
OF the decree entered in September 1851
as Va, 1034)
The appellant was entitled from 1916
To a prescribed and limited flow OF water
from the canal, for which he was 10
nay 500 a year; but for some years ne
received a much larger flow. without any
question and without any additional rent
The control and ownership of this water
passed to the Richmond and Allegheny
Railroad Company. The paper factory
lust above the appellant In order to OBJ
tain an adequate supply Of water, was
forced to make a new contract; and the
same water passed through the premises
of the appellant, who thus enjoyed the
same benefit that the paper company
did. In 1851 litigation commenced, ana
it was decided by the Court of Appeals
modifying a decision Of the Chancery
| Court. that the appellant should pay
| the 500 a year for the stipulated guam
| tjty. and should have the election or
| taking and paying his share of the cost
| of all the water which passed through
| his premises: and. IL he did not SO elect.
| the paper-mill might divert from him
said exc ess of water. In 1880 the appel
| liant filed his election 10 take said ex-
| cess and pay for 1t, and the Chancery
| Court held that he must pay for 1t. not
only from the date of his election. but
| from that of the new contract by tn
paper-mill company. But this court does
| NOT sustain that view. and allows the
appellees to be paid for the excess only
| from the time of appellants election.
| Decree of Chancery Court of Richmond
| reversed.
| A LAND BOOM CASE
BeckIey VS.. Riverside Land Companv
ct. ais. Opinion by Judge r. II. Cardwell.
During the boom" at Buchanan. Bot'-
tourt county, in October 1890, Beckley
purchased from r. r. Bowyer two lots
! paid some cash. and afterwards received
from Bowyer deeds for said lots and had
them recorded: but they were sub'ec- to
deed Of trust by Bower TO said land
company, and said Beckley assumed the
payment Of Bowyers notes TO said com
pany But Beckley did not pay said notes
| and the company obtained judgment
against Bowyer and hen garnisheed
Beckley. who was indebted to Bowyer.
and obtained judgment against him. Ex-
ecution on this garn'shee judgment was
issued and levied: but Beckley gave q
forthcoming bond. which he forfeited.
and new execution was issued and
placed i'm the Sheriff's hands. Then Beck
ley obtained from the Circuit Court OF
Lynchburg an injunction. and rTaved
that the deeds for said lots be declared
null and void that the judgment on the
garnishee proceedings be set aside. and
decree made against the Riverside
Land Company for the repayment OF the
money already paid by him for the said
lots upon the ground of false representa-
tons. The Riverside Land Company and
| Rowyer demurred to and answered Beck
ley's bills and denied his allegations
The Circuit Court af Lynchburg dis.
solved the injunction and gave decree
TO said company for 10 per cent. dam
ages. interest and costs. From this
Beckley appealed.
This court says that the assignment
Of error is OF a general character--that
upon the facts and law OF the case the
decree is erroneous. The law Is well
settled by recent decisions OF this court
that Misrepresentation, when material
relied upon. and acted upon. will furnish
good ground for relief This appellant
might be precluded by his own neglect
and delay; for he asserted no claim fol-
a rescission OF his contract with Bowyer
until the execution was issued on his
forfeited forthcoming bond; and even IL hs
were entitled to relief IL might be
against Bowyer only. But examining tbs
case upon its merits. this court holds tina,
the allegations as TO false representa-
tons are not sustained: that the appel.
liant was one Of the dissatisfied victims
of the ''land-boom" period. and the de.
cree of the court below must be affirmed
CIRCUMSTANCES POLICY.
Goode & Co VS.. Georgia Home Insur-
ance Company. Opinion by Judge Buch.
anan. This was an action OF assumpsi-
upon a policy of fire insurance, which
was solicited and obtained by Robert r.
Harris son of Thomas b. Harris, VINO
with another son, was the general agent
at Culpeper. for the Home Insurance
Company Robert f. Harris was the So
licitor and sub-agent of the genera
agents The trial court excluded evidence
of the acts. etc, OF Robert r.. Harris anC
also gave judgment in favor OF defendant
upon its demurrer TO the evidence. Tns
plaintiffs wished 10 show that X. r.. Har
ris had knowledge Of the eed of trus
and the other insurance on which ths
defendants relied. as contrary 10 IN,
application. and vitating the policy
Held by tbs court that the insurer II
not only responsible for the acts of its
general agents but also for the acts Of
the clerks or employees Of the agents
TO whom they delegate authority TO dis
charge their functions within the scope Of
their agsncy. This question has beer
much discussed, but the above is now the
better view. a number of authorities are
cited, and the judgment is reversed
ACTION OF EJECTMENT.
Jennings VS.. Gravely, etc. Opinion de
livered by President Keith. This was al
action OF ejectment by Mary F. and r
B. Gravely VS.. Jennings. for the recovery
OF tract of land. Defendant gave notc,
OF defence. under the statute. that IN,
property sued for was sold under de
cree OF the County Court OF Pittsylvania
and fully paid for. though no deed wa,
made therefor" The case was tried b,
the Court without a jury, and judgmen
given for the plaintiffs. Jennings ap
pealed
The evidence Of the defendants in erro
showed that they were the holders of tn,
legal title. and had the right to posses
sion when the action was commenced.
The defence OF equitable title attempt
ed to be set up. under section 27fl o.
the Code cannot be made available in thi'
instance. The opinions Of j. BALDWIN
in Davis and others VS.. Teays and others
Grattan. 23. and Of Staples. Jr, II
Suttls vs.. Railroad Company. 10th vir
ginia. are quoted. Judgment affirmed
Personality to Pay Debts.
News Executriy VS. Bass. Brown * Co
Opinion by Judge Cardwell. The persona
estate OF a deceased person Is the natura
and primary fund for the payment o