The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-19

the award has been rendered; and sucn
an agreement Is no bar TO an action or
suit. and no foundation for a decree for
specific performance. rs Va, IS.
Beale's Administrator vs.. Gordon. From
the Circuit Court OF Fauquier county.
Affirmed, Judge Cardwell delivering the
opinion. Judge Keith absent. having de-
cided the case below.
5. Beale. treasurer Of Fauquier' eNe
cuted a deed of trust to Scott 10 saw
harmless the sureties on his oficiai Donn,
and afterwards was In default IN laisO
| amount. Rixey. one OF these suree,
was his deputy, and Beale got Juugiiienmaee
against his administrator for ABOUT S''V''
for the benefit Of Scott, truotee. :.
Rixey's administrator claimed that ne
had paid large sums TO the Common
wealth in discharge OF fits Judgment
against Bealc and his sureties, ana Una.
said payments were a proper ohses
against Beale's judgment against nm.
Then other sureties came In. claiming
that they had paid large sums also OF,
said judgment against Beale. and thae
Beale's judgment against Rixey should DE
paid to Scott trustee. and dedicated 10
the protection Of all the sureties; but IL
Rixey's administrator were allowe~ the
set-on claimed by him, then the estate OF
Rixey must pro rate with the otner
sureties according as each had paid. the
court below decreed that balance found
due by Rixey's estate on Beale's judgment
be paid to l.. d. Beale, administrator OF
William Beale, one of the sureties who
had made excess of payment as such.
Appeal to this court and decree affirmed;
So Va. s53 Thereupon l.. ID. Beale. as
administrator, filed a bill demanding
further contribution from his cosmetics,
and amongst them the administrator Of
Rixey. Bill dismissed as to this defend
ant as res adjudicata, and appeal to this
court.
Held. When a judgment or decree has
been rendered by a court Of competent
Jurisdiction in a suit it is a bar to any
further action between the same parties
upon the same matter Of controversy
The decree is not only final as TO the
matters actually determined. but as TO
every matter which the parties might
have ltigated in the scope of the plead
ings. 50 Va, 543; s. Va, 1853; 81 Va, AZ;
! 50 Va. 660-61. &c.
Cochran VS.. Richmond and Allegheny
RAILROAD Company. From the Circuit
Court Of the City of Richmond. Affirmed.
Opinion by Keith, president
The defendant purchased the franchises
O the James River and Kanawha Canal
! Company. subject to two deeds of trust.
and then gave like deeds In favor of It's
own creditors. and foreclosure OF the
last deeds ensued. The property was
sold for cash payment sufficient TO dis
charge the principal and interest Of the
Canal bonds, secured up to the day of
sale. Counsel for the canals trustees
having performed additional services
claimed additional compensation. which
was just and reasonable. This claim
was resisted earnestly by the owners OF
the fund out of which It was to be
paid, and especially by the appellant.
Finally, every litigant. except him,
dropped out. and the court below decreed
that the additional fee be paid by the
owners of the fund i'm proportion to their
holdings. and Cochran appealed, claim
ing that he was entitled to full interest
on his bonds, while he was allowed in
terest only up to the time that the cash
| payment was made into the court.
| Held: l. Where a loss has occurred
which must fall upon one OF two per-
| sons, II must be borne by him whose act
occasioned it. The appellant. having
been the efficient cause OF the loss In
this case, the loss must fall upon him.
,. The appellant having become Dor
rover Of the fund pending the litigation.
giving his obligation therefor, and de-
| posting the original bonds, Of which he
was the holder. as collateral for its pay
ment in the final settlement, this transac-
ton should not be considered a loan, but
as a payment to him. as of its date.
other proceedings were as follows:
keyser, Simpson x Company Trustees.
VS.. Guggenheimer d Company. Upon
petition for a rehearing. Petition re-
| fused.
Bankenship VS.. Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad Company. Writ of error
awarded TO the judgment OF the Circuit
| Court of the city of Richmond.
| Maury VS. Commonwealth of Virginia.
| Writ Of error and supersedeas awarded
to judgment OF the Circuit Court OF the
city of Richmond.
Flat Top Coal and Coke Association VS..
Bristol Iron and Steel Company Appeal
allowed to decree of the Corporation
Court Of Bedford City, not to operate as
| a supersedeas.
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
| Powell. Write of error and supersedeas
TO judgment of the Law and Equity
Court Of the city of Richmond.
| National Bank or Virginia vs.. Noting
| Writ of error and supersedeas 10 judg-
ment Of the Circuit Court Of the city OF
Richmond.
Olinger VS. l.. and y. Railroad Com
pany. Appeal refused to decree OF the
| Circuit Court of Lee county.
Imperial Guano Company vs.. Marshall
& Greener. Writ Of error refused TO
judgment of the Corporation Court of
the city of Norfolk.
Buffman & Stuttman VS.. Durham and
ais. Appeal refused TO decree of the
| Corporation Court OF the city OF Bristol,
| va.
Parish, Trustee, VS.. Wayman. Fur
their argued by Eppa Hunton. Jr.. Esq.
| for appellant. and j. +. RiXey for APP
| pellee, and submitted.
! Crews VS.. Hatcher. Argued by james
r. Harrison, Esq, for appellants, and
| at bar.
This is the fourth time that this case
! has come up on appeal.
Nonresident attorneys in attendance;
r. o. PeatrOss. Esq. Of Danville; W. NJ.
Flanagan, Esq, OF Powhatan, and Mr..
| Harmanson. OF Norfolk.
| To-day after case at bar Is concluded,
Campbell x Company VS.. Angus & Com
| pany will be called.