Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-05
INSURER MUST PAY.
THE SuPREME COURT OF AppEALs
on CHANGE OF POSSESSION.
An important Decision-The Rule
az TO stipuiations, Forfcitures. &c.
Question of Moving Lease-Othcr
Opinions.
Opinions.

opinions were handed down IN the
supreme Court Of Appeals yesterday In
the following cases:
Georgia Home Insurance Companv vs.
bartlett. trustee. From the Circuit Court
OF rage county This was in the lower
court an action OF the trustee against
the company 10 obtain Judgment upon
policy OF insurance executed by the
defendant upon the property Of the VAL
ley Land and Improvement Company.
situated al Luray. in Page county. The
jury found for the plaintiff The ques-
ton raised in the appeal was the refusal
OF the Judge OF the Circuit Court TO
give the following instruction. asked for
by the defendant: "The Court further
instructs the jury that II there is any
change in the possession OF the pro-
perty insured between the date OF the
policy and the date OF the fire without
the consent or the knowledge OF the
company. the Jury must find for the
defendants. unless the said company has
waived the said provision Of said policy
The point involved was whether the
passing OF the property from the trustee
into the hands OF "A receiver by order
Of the Court was such a change OF pos
session as vitiated the policy under the
contract or clause in the policy against
transfer. and the Court held that II was
not. In conclusion. the opinion says:
THOSE Insurance policies abound In in
Vulnerable stpulations, forfeiturcs, and
provisions ha.d TO understand and diff
cult OF performance. and II is n Well-set-
tied rule that they must be strictly con
strued against the insurer, and hperdily
in favor Of the insured" Il am
or opinion that there IL no error IN inc
Judgment OF the Circuit Court and II
must be affirmed" Opinion by Judge
Harrison.
4 MINING-LEAsD QUESTION
Young VS.. Ellis. From the Circuit Court
OF Franklin-a case involving the con
struction OF an indenture executed by
Young and wife 20 ]. II. Ellis upon me
consideration of So 10 be paid annually
and royalty on the orc actually mined'
and granting TO Ellis the right ana priv
lege OF entering upon the lands or Dung
and wife and mining for any ana al,
mineral properties that might be founi
thereon for n period of ninety-ninc years
unless annulled by the failure OF EIils
TO pay the annual sum OF ~ OF lhe
royalty on the ore mined. The. court
holds that this Is not mere incense,
but a mining lease. and not reVocable AT
the viii OF Young and wife; The case case
turned on the question OF whether rms
had failed 10 pay the S2j due by him at
the end Of the first year ana me court
held that the non-payment or TINS sum
was owing 10 the mala fdes or Young
and Wlie, ana d1lifINU Aut Q''lt "a
the lower court. refusing to annul The
lease on this ground. Opinion 10y JuHge
Conrad vs.. Smith. From the Corporation
Court OF Winchester. Reversed. opinion
by Judge Rely.
THE LATE COURT AFFIRMED.
Morris VS. Wilkinson. From the cir
cult Court OF King William. \ rehearins.
Late court affirmed. Opinion by Ju1se
Gronin & Co. vs.. First National Fire
Insurance Company. Of fredeIlckSbuIs T.
VIII q error refused. opinion by Court
Guggenheimer & co. From the Cltc4 lt
Court of Aleghany. \ case involving the
jurisdiction Of the circuit Court he-
versed Oulnion ny Judge Buchanan.
Camphens administrator We. the klch-
uord and Danville Railroad Company.
Affirmed Opinion by Judgr HaTisQn
John Bowles vs. Allen Pollock. FROM
the Circuit Court Of Page county Al
flrmed Opinion by Judge Ecly.,
J. T. Dillard ". y +. billiards. c1ec1-
tor. etc From the Circuit Court OF Net
sen. 4 case involving the ccnsiruc',Cn
81 a will. Affirmed Opinion by Judge
Depriest vs. Jones. From the Circuit
Court OF Augusta. Affirmed. opinion by
Lennies executors vs.. White and
others Hehcaring - a case from the
Circuit Court Of Rockingham, l.4te court
affirmed opinion ty Judge KEN.
Circuit Court Of Gloucester. Miller was
tried I'm the County Court al GlOuo' ser
for malicious assault. ami found guilty;
He appealed 10 the Circuit court. ana
the County Court was affirmed. one
assignment IN error in the appeal 10 this
court was that the prisoner was tried
hv Jury Cf thirteen. such. n" record
shows was not the case. Affirmed. Opin-
len ~ Judge Harrison
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
The further proceedings Of the court
We're:
Crabtree vs.. Pulaski Lumber Company,
and GARNER. receiver. " Mills. Petition
for appeals from DEGREES Of the Circuit
Court OF Pulaski county. Refused.
Leavv We. Niagara Fire Insurance
Company. Writ Of error and supersedeas
awarded Judgment Of the Hastings
Court OF the city ~ Roanoke.
Gfcsby ". Boyd Appeal refused TO
"a decree Of Corporation Court Of Win
chester
Bedford High School vs. Board Of
Supervisors OF bedford county. Petition
for mandamus filed. cause doCketed. and
set FOR hearing after No II IS concluded
Rison W Moon. Further argued by
Hon Thomas : Martin for appellee and
W. Petit, Esq, for appellant. and
submitted.
Cochran vs.. Richmond and ALLEGHENY
Railroad Company. Argued by 4. T..
Guigon ESQ, for appellant
w = Lockwood. Esq, allowed 90 prac-
tice as counsel In the court.