Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-08
BONDS ARE VALID.
CASE OF BELL AGAINST THE FARM
WILLIE AND rowHArAN DECIDED.
Judge Harrison Delivers an Inter-
estinn Dissenting Opinton-Thc
hrmcd-Suprcmc Court News.

Three opinions were rendered in the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals yesterday in the
Ease OF Bell and others against the Farm
lille and powhatan Railroad Company.
The suit came up from the Circuit Court
or Petersburg, and involved the validity
or the Powhatan county bonds issued in
payment OF stock in the Farmvllc and
Powhatsn Railroad Company. 1t was
commended by the taxpayers that the re-
mowal OF the cass from the Circuit
Court OF rowhatan TO the Circuit Court
OF Chesterfield and Petersburg was ir-
regular. and that the latter court had no
right 10 try the case IN the absence Of
certified abstracts Of the records Of Pow
hatan and Chesterfield orders The Court
OF Appeals held that the docketng Of
the case by consent IN Petersburg gave
the court there the right 10 proceed with
the case without those certified abstracts.
The court further decides that the act
OF ISIS authorizing the issue Of coupon
bonds validated the conditional bonds and
cured any defects existing in the pro-
ceedings leading up To their issue None
or the questions as 10 the regularity Of
court holding that this question was con-
elusive Of the case. The judgment Of the
Circuit Court OF Petersburg is affirmed.
JUDGE HARRISON DISSENTS
The decision was prepared by judge
Buchanan and concurrcd in by Judge
Rely. while judge Keith handed down
an opinion. ConCurred in by Judge Card
we'll. agreeing with the general results OF
judge Buchanan's opinion Judge Harri-
son delivered a positive dissenting opinion,
IN which he vigorously argued that the
act mentioned was intended merely 10
grant a privilege OF issuing new bonds.
provided the county authorities elected 10
do so, saying that "the act. which WAS
on its face intended as a benefit. Is now
made the means Of ruin 70 the beneficial
ries, so far as the payment OF this large
deb; is concerned" He further said that
the county was entitled 10 make all de-
fences against the conditional bonds
which she could have made bnfore the
act was passed. and was not estOpped 10
make that defence by the letter or spirit
OF the act.
Mr.. W. W. Flanagan. counsel for the
county OF Powhatan. stated that he would
file a petition for a rehearng. and the
opinion Of Judge Harrison encourages him
to believe that II will be granted.
CARNEAL AGAINST LYNCH
Judge Harrison delivered quite an in
teresting opinion in the case Of Carneal
against Lynch and others. from the Chan |
Gerry Court Of Richmond. In IL the Judc-
ment OF the lower tribunal IS affirmed. |
The case Is one IN which benjamin suit
ton gave 10 his two grandsons. W. W. |
and Charles @. Lynch. p house and lot at |
the corner of Grace and jefferson streets, |
Tor their lives. with cross rcmaindcrs 10 |
their children and in the event OF The |
death Of both wthou, issue the property |
was 10 pass 10 their sister. M0ilie y |
Lynch. or her issue. Charles q. Lynch |
Gisd. leaving two children. who are now
the fee-sinple owners % their father |
moie-y. Ia 1888 W. VI. Lynch. lfe-tenant |
In one moiety Of the property, nled a bill /
in chanCery for the sale Of this property, |
for partition The property WAS sold. by
order Of the court on an upset bid. 10 ).
j. Carneal. Tor Sn.515. The court con-
firmed the sale. hut reserved To the pur-
chaser leave 10 have the title examined
within reasonable time. Counsel for
the purchaser made two objections TO the
title. which The lower court oveyrulei. The
first was that William NJ. Lynch, being
only a life-tenant IN one molety Of the
land. had no power IN law - MAINTAIN
q suit for PARTITION. The court argues this
pom, a; length, but atlrms the judgment
o. the lower court.
The second objection was that the
ground was advertised as fronting 81 feet
l II inches on Grace street when. as |
q matter ~ fact. il lronted on that street
only o. feet : inches. the difference OF
feet J. inches being embraced in a
part OF jefferson street. The court says
that a plot Of this property distinctly
showing the erCrOaChment on Jefferson |
street was az the auctioneers office,
where the purchaser had every oppOr-
tunity Of seeing IL. and that he did not |
CO SO was his own fault.
SUPREME COURT NOTES.
The only other case decided by this
court yesterday was that Of the Roanoke
Brick and Lime Company against Sim
Roanoke Affirmed. Judge Keith deliv-
erinR opinion.
This is the record of the other business
Of yesterday
overly against walsh. Appeal refused.
Brown against Bedford City Land and
improvement, Company. Rehearing de-
MED
Volney L. Howard Edward W Robert
son and Archer Anderson, Jr., ESQ.,
allowed to practice az counsel in this
court.
Johnson's administrator against Chesa-
peake and Ohio Railway Company. Fur
ther argued by Judge W. J. Robertson
for defendant in error. and Camm Pate
son for plaintiff in error. and submitted
Shipman against Fletcher. Argued by |
Hon w. Willoughby for appellant.