The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-14
MARRIED W0MAN'S ESTATE
AN IMPORTANT DECISION IN THE
SUPREME COURT.
T,fer Va. Ty'es From the Circuit Court OF
Loudouo-- other Opinions Handed
Down Yesterday at Wythoviilc.


cree OF the court below affirmed; opinion
b. Judge Harrison.
This was a suit by the representatives
of The estate OF Elizabeth 4. Clenden-
ming vs.. The estate OF John II. Thomp-
son TO enforce the collection Of a bond
executed by Thompson to the trustee Of
Elizabeth A. Clondenning. The court heid
that the circumstances Of the case to-
gcther with the relations Of the parties,
thc transactions between them. laches in
the assertion Of the claim. and lapse OF
time were sufficient TO raise the presuinp-
ton OF payment. and to satisfy the court
that the claim had been settled.
I.agorlo vs. Dozier. From the Corpora
ton Court Of the city Of Norfolk. De-
cree OF the court below dhImec, opinion
In Isl Robert Rhea. Of the one part
and Clement hill and Mahaia. his wife,
bv deed undertook 70 exchange lots in
the civ OF Norfolk. By inadvertencc
he names Of lin and vile were omitted
from the deed as grantees. Inc court
That By looking TO the whole pa
per ID may supply the names of the gram
foos and that there being no latent am
blguity IN the instrument, the court can
NOT consider eNirinsic evidence 10 aid 1t IN
It's Interpretations that being
the one lot must by necessity be
the grantee Of the other. and it is. there
fore. considered that the conveyance
must be read as though the names Of
Clement hin and Mahala. his WIFE, had
been inserted as grantee from Rhea.
4 court OF law has no power either 70
reform a deed or TO set up and execute
resulting trust.
Harvey Austin VS.. Commonwealth.
From the Circuit Court of Pulaski cOun-
~. Judgment reversed.
flftIfl n
with writ OF error 10 the Circuit Court
OF Pulaski county. Judgment reversed.
MARRIED. woMAN's RIGHTS.
Fifcr. Sc. vs.. Tyler. sc. From the
Circuit Court Of Loudoun county. Al
nrmcd. opinion by Judge Buchanan
!. That this court has jurisdiction OF
appeal in creditors suit. Upon the
petition of a creditor whose claim was
less than 500 when suit was instituted.
but before the decree was rendered set
ding rights Of parties. he became the
owner OF other claims proved in the cause
so that his whole claim is more tnan
$40. IL his purchase OF claims after
suit brought was made in good faith.
2 A court Of equity has jurisdiction
TO eniOin the sale OF married wOman's
equitable separate estate levied upon for
her husbands debts. even though there
were complete and adequate remedy
at law under section 2e39 of the Code, since
courts OF equity had such jurisdiction
before that statute was passed.
g. A married woman who united with
her husband I'm a deed of trust TO secure
his individual debts ipon her inherited
lands. In the absence OF any agreement
20 the contrary. Is treated as his surety,
and If her interest In the lands have 10
be subjected for the payment Of such
debts. IL is a good consideration for
settlement upon her by her husband 10
the extent OF the consideration furnished
T. The engagements Of a married wo-
man can only be enforced against inc
N.N fH4f NNn
at the time Of entering into the engage
ment. or so much thereof as she owns
when TIE decree Is rendered.
PARTNERSHIP CASE.
Shlpman VS.. Fletcher From the Cir
cult Court OF the city Of Alexandria. Al
irmed, Judge Riley delivering the opih-
ton
This was.a suit brought for the settle
ment of the partnership matters OF John
j. shipman ana William Fletcher, and
involved very complicated accounts. The
questions ON the appeal arose upon eN-
ccptiOus 10 the report Of the commits
sioner. TO whom the matters were referred
Tor settlement ana report. some of the
exceptions were sustained by the lower
court. and others 0Verrulod. The report
OF The commissioner was based upon the
books and papers Of the parties, ana also
upon the dcpositions OF witnesses much
OF whose testimony was connecting. I'm
the opinion the weight 10 be given TO the
report OF q commissioner was discussed
and the following hcld.
]. That the report OF "A commissioner
81 TO De taken as correct unless excepted
10.
z. That when excepted TO. it is the
province and duty of the court TO examine
the evidence, and test the correctness Of
tue nuulug of the cOmmissiOner,and may
come % "a different conclusion.
3. And may do this. even where the tes-
timony is conflicting, unless the evidence
Is evenly balanced, and the conclusions
Ion HHaIf 4ffN...I
competent and unimpeachcd witnesses.
I. That where no exception is taken 20
the report Of the commissioner, the ap-
ptllatc court may not consider matter
which may be affected by eNtraneOus |
inrse rales were followed by the Cir
cult Court and 1t was sustained In all |
OF It's rulings
FLETCHER vs.. sHIPMAN.
Fletcher VS. Shipman. From the Cir |
cult Court of the city Of Alexandria. AZ |
hfmcd. opinion delivered by Judge Riley.
This appeal was heard along with the |
appeal In the case of Shipman vs.. Fetch |
or. and the subject matter of this suit |
and OF the appeal was directly involved |
In that case. 1t was there determined |
adversely 10 the contention of the appel !
liant. and Tor that reason the appeal in |
this case was affirmed.
LightfOOts Administrator vs. Green's |
Executor. From the Circuit Court OF /
Ion by Judge Cdrdwen.
James H. Green. who was executor OF |
+. H. Henry. deceased, on July SlO 1910. |
assigned 10 Edward LightfOot In pay |
mtnt Of a debt held by Lightfoot against |
Henry's estate bond Of BEETLE Nj. WeVy |
10 Green. dated October n, 1872. payable |
one year after date. which bond was Sc
cured as stated IN the assignment 10y him /
on real estate and otherwise and Green |
by the terms of the assignment agreed |
10 remain bound 10 LightfoOt. assgnOr for |
the fun amount of the bond, and TO collect /
the same without fee. or other charge, |
reserving TO himself entire control of |
the bond. and the right 10 use his own !
discretion as TO steps TO be taken TO coll |
lcct II.
Llghifcoi died June 1852. and Green |
died April l. 1884, and suit was brought |
by IlghtfoOts administrator in February, !
1852 to recover Of Green's estate the 1
amount due on the WeVy bond. Green's |
cxccutrix relied on the plea of the sta
tute OF limitations. laches. and prcsump- |
ton OF payment. lapse Of time, condition |
OF parties and their relations TO each |
other.
IL was held that under the nature OF
Green's obligation and undertaking under |
the assignment the estate could not begin |
TO run against Lightfoots estate until the
Wcvy bond was barred. and Green lived |
and was capable OF performing the duties
undertaken thereby. that the doctrine or
laches has no application IN this case,
and that lapse OF time condition OF par
ties. and their relations. &c, did not
justify the presumption OF payment
OTHER CASES