Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-26

only entitled 10 the interest OF the 5000
until the youngest attained the age Of a
years. when the creditors had right
10 the fund.
The court entered an order In the suit
In which the removal OF the $2.oo had
been allowed and appointed a receiver.
who should take such steps here or In
West Virginia as might be necessary TO
secure the corpus OF the fund. In 1871
this receiver fled his petition. In which.
among other things. he stated that the
guardian Conrad was In Virginia. and
asked that he he compelled to appear
and bring the fund into court that IL
might be invested and secured.
The guardian demurrcd and answered.
The Supreme Court holds that the court
below erred in dsmiseirg the petition;
that IL was proper for the guardian TO be
proceeded against In this State: That
he had prematurely removed the funds
before the end OF the term OF the court
which had made the Clendeang order
during the same term.
But the demurrer should have been
sustained because the children were not
made parties TO the petition Of the T.
cciver and leave TO amend II ought 10
have been granted. The court errtd In
passing upon the rights OF the children
In the fund when they were not before
the court.
The cause is remanded for further pro-
ceedinss according 10 this opinion
CONSTRUCTION or A WILL.
Judge Harrison delivered the opinion
in Parish. trustee. ct al. Us. Wayman
trustee. Il al This case CONSTITUTES the
wsll Of Joseph r. Redo. lie gave one
share Of his real estate 10 trustees to be
held by them in trust. and for the beneh.
Of his niece. Agnes Priscilla Read. du-
ring her natural life. and should she Gie
and leave no child The property devised
above. or what may remain OF the same,
/ give 10 my sister
The above language gives the SAID
Agnes a fee simple. But there is an
other point in the case. The said Agnes
became the Widow Parish. with a num-
Der OF children. In 1870 she had settle
ment with her acting trustee, Colbert
who conveyed to her tract Of land in
full satisfaction Of her interest under
the will of her uncle, estimated at Sl,5O
still after Cohorts death she ana her
children, all grown, file Il petition in q
suit to settle up Colbert's estate, ana IN
sist that Colbcrt's estate shall be charged
with 1880. and credited with the true
value Of the land. There IS no charge
OF fraud in the petition. This court holds
that If she had any rights which had
been violated. her laches precuded her
from the assertion Of them. She was not
heard to utter d word Of complaint for
twenty years. She was sui juris and
capable ~ contracting with Colbert; ana.
even If II could be shown that the land
was not worth as much as she took Il
for, she could not be permitted TO re
pudiate her contract, 80 long acquiesced
In.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Williams vs.. Conner. From Circuit Court
Of Allegheny Writ OF error and super
scdeas awarded
Ross. administrator. vs. Hughes's ex-
ocutor. Appeal awarded to decree Of
the Circuit Court OF Gloucester. No
bond.
Bonner vs.. Rosser It ais. Appeal al
lowed 10 a decree Of the Circuit Court OF
Scott county. Bond for $500.
Hampton vs.. Jet. From the Circuit
Court Of Washington. Appeal allowed.
Bond 5000.
Lanehorne VS.. Richmond city Railway
Company. Motion 10 amend judgment
heretofore rendered refused.
Morris 81 ais. rs. Antrim ct ais. This
g. an application for an injunction. which
was refused by Judge Wexford OF the
Circuit Court Of the city Of Richmond,
and which has been examined By each OF
the judges of this court. We are of the
opinion that the bill does not state a
case for an injunction, and it is, there
FORE refused
Fuller vs.. Tyler was argued by Mr..
Eppa Hunton. Jr.. for the appellee and
by Mr. j. II. Alexander for the appel
liant. and submitted.