The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-09
THE COURT ADJOURNED,
A NUMBER or IMPORTANT DECIs-
IONS MINDED DOWy.
Question of Title by observation-disclosures
v~rsy as to Proper Mode of Ascertain
ing Quantity of Brick Laid.

IL appeared that the appehco pun
a tract OF land of which he had been put
I'm possession; that he had received decd
for II with general warranty, that his
possession had been neither disturbed
nor threatened that his grantor was not
insolvent. and had taken no steps by
enforcement of the deed Of trust or other
wise to collect the unpaid purchase
money: that there was no concealment OF
the incumbrance which rests upon the
land, the existence of which was plainly
set forth upon the face of the deed under
which the appellee derived title TO the
land purchased. and OF which, therefore,
he must be presumed 10 have had no.
tice.
Held: That the law is with the appel
lant and, further. If objection be urged
to this conclusion. that 1t leaves the ap-
pellee with a cloud resting upon his TITLE
The al swer Is, he IS i'm the precise posi-
ton which he contracted to occupy, and as
long as he was undisturbed had no ground
OF complaint which entities him 10 IN
woke the aid of a court of equity. wnich,
as 1t has been said, may "mend the con-
sciences OF man. but not their assur-
ances": that whenever the appellant
seeks to force his deed of trust, without
having first lifted the paramount lien.
court OF chancery Will. at the instance
OF the appellee, be ready TO interpose ana
grant such relief as the nature of his
case may then require.
Morgan vs.. Glendy. From the Circuit
Court Of Wythe county. Opinion ny Judge
Keith. p. Decree affirmed.
CUSTOM or LAYING BRICK.
Richlands Flint Glass Company vs..
Hiltebeitel. From the Circuit Court OF
Tazewell county. Opinion By Judge Rely.
Affirmed.
J. II. Hiltebeitel made a contract IN
lie nf-l.l "A -
Company to lay brick I'm the building OF
its factory at "A certain price per tnou-
sand, and having taken out his inecnan-
les lien after the termination OF the work
brought this suit 10 enforce H. Inc nam
controversy was as TO the proper mode OF
ascertaining the quantity of brick laid
and TO be paid for. The glass company
contended that under the contract II
must be done by an actual count, while
Hiltebeite insisted that the contract be-
ing silent. or at least ambiguous, as 10
the manner Of making the count. II was
to be done according 10 the custom OF the
locality or the usage OF trade.
The Court held that as there was no
express stipulation I'm the written con-
tract as TO the method by which the
quantity OF brick was to be ascertained,
evidence was admissible 10 prove the Gus
tom of the locality or the usage OF trade.
And IL being shown by the evidence
that II was the custom TO measure the
walls and allow so many bricks TO the
cubic foot. the Court further held that IL
was 10 be presumed that the parties
had contracted with respect TO 81 n GUS
tom. and that the quantity of brick was
10 be so estimated and settled for.
Virginia Mining Company w. James
Wilkinson. From the Circuit Court OF
Carroll county. Opinion by Judge Rely.
Amended and affirmed.
The appellees brought a suit at Law to
recover the purchase money for parcel
of land. and upon a bill by the defen liant
urar an
the suit. upon the ground that the plain
t.nfs had not rendered a proper deed 10
the land according to the contract OF
sale and upon the further ground that
the contract was not In writing, and
therefore void under the statute OF
frauds
Held That these were legal dcfcnces
which could be as readily made t. the
suit at law as In equity. and that court
OF equity could not take jurisdiction Of
the case. The injunction was therss)re
dissolved, the bill dismissed. and the ap-
pellant sent back 10 make its defence in
the suit at law.
FIGHTS or WIDOW
Dunford ct ais against Jackson's execu-
tors From the Circuit Court OF Wythe
county Opinion by Judge Cardwell. Al
firmed.
Testator devised his lands Upon which
ht resided. 20 his wife for life. remainder
I'm fee TO two. of his sons. and added. 1T
is my wish that all OF the personal
property on my farm a the time Of my
death including farming implements OF
all kinds. horse. cattle. sheep, and hcgs,
shall be included in the devise 10 my
wife and two sons
Held: That the latter part OF this
clause the widow takes for life, with re-
mainder I'm absolute ownership 10 the
two sons all the personal Chattels on the
home place. including grain harvested In
the testator's lifetime. household and
kitchen furniture. hay, grain I'm barns
and cribs. live stock of every d'scrip-
ton. farm utensils. and implements or
all kinds. but not the money OF chooses
i'm action OF testator. or personal chat
tells. or growing crops, not on the home
place.
Spence and Nef against Norfolk ana
Western Railroad Company. From the
Circuit Court OF Wythe county. Opinion
by Judge Buchanan Reversed.
l. The consignOr Of goods has the right
to maintain an action against the COM
mon carrier for the injury or loss or
goods. where he retains a property right
or interest in them, either general or
special
2 And his action may be- either as
sumpsit or case. The principle in all
such cases would seem to he that the
contract creates duty and the neglect
10 perform the duty or the nOn-ielsance
Is ground Of action upon tort as well
a upon contract
Porter and others against Robinson ana
others. From the Circuit Court OF Wytne
county. opinion by Judge Harrison. Al
frnod
l.obmctt and others against Harris and
others. Petition for an Injunction and
Injunction refused.
Bank OF Swanee against tullerson
From the Circuit Court Of Lee county
Petition for writ of error refused.
Sims against Sims. Committee. Frcm
the Circuit Court Of Greene county. APP
peal and supersedoas awarded. Bond
in penalty 81 s2a.
Mn against Blakey. From the Circuit
Court OF Madison county. Petition tor
an appeal refused.
Bank OF the Valley against Ridgeway
and others. Appeal and supersedeas
awarded to a decree of the Circuit Court.
No bond required. the petitioner being
personal representative.
Cheeks Executors against Cheeks De-
visss. From the Corporation Court Of the
city OF Danville. Appeal and supersedeas
awarded BOnd I'm the penalty of 5000.
Jameson against Rixey. From the Cir
cult Court OF Culpeper county. Appeal
and supersedeas awarded. Bond in the
penalty of $40.
Knowles against City OF stanton. From
the Circuit Court OF Augusta county. Pc
tition for a writ OF error refused
Russell against LouisVilie ana Ndsn-
Vile Railroad Company. writ OF error
and supersedeas awarded 10 judgment
OF the Circuit Court OF Lee county BOND
in the penalty OF 800.
Newberry Land Company against Har-
man Newberry. Writ OF error and super
sedeas awarded TO judgment OF the
Circuit Court OF Bland county. Bond IN
the penalty of 800.
Stout against Little. Appeal and super
sedeas awarded 10 a Judgment OF the
Circuit Court OF Lee county. Bond In the
penalty Of ESQ