Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-26
WON By THE CHURCH
Money Given for Charity Without Con-
diliOnS Cannot be Controlled.
.;oonE-sTurET SCHOOL CONTEST.
The supreme Court Rcndcrs Two
uccIsIou. iu Connection with This
,.ntro,crsy--Opini In VIII and
Property Cases.

yesterday their opinions IN seven cases.
President Keith led on with that in the
ease OF Clarke. etc. vs.. Oliver etc There
were ln Richmond two organizations
< colorca -aioorC-Strect Mission
ary baptist church ana Moore-Stroet In
sust9ial Society. The church purchased
l5t and had 10 conveyed to their trustees.
vub'cc, o. @ len for the unpaid purchase
money. FOR the Industrial School
many influential residents OF Rich
.ond subscribed funds. and John
1uy,-. az agent obtained contri-
tliiors mr 10 in Pennsylvania and
oie,vlcro. The lien on the church lot
r.s ual 81, IN which tho members OF
.hc church had also assisted; 90 that the
,-rsrcst utIc 90 the lot was in the
,..,ecs o. ,he church. Nut the promoters
u me Industrial School determined 10
,sscri a claim 90 the property because
n.y had furnished The greater part OF
NE money which had oNunguished the
ben. TH.s controversy resulted in COM
promise. by which the larger part OF this
lt was conveyed for the benefit Of the
school with covenant that IL the
I.'aA Esi.NhA at any tsiAl' A+eNN
On Ia used for religious purposes by said
Csurch At should belong 10 the Industrial
boob
This arrangement. however. di9 not set
fr Oh. aifiC4ltlcs. and six years after its
execution bin In equity was filed on
behalf az % number Of plaintiffs FOR them
solves and others. contributors for the
establishment OF the Industrial school.
Who averrcl that they had contributed
solely o. said school. and had paid their
money to John oliver. as agent, for no
other purpose. and that their funds had
l.cu mlsapphcd. contrary to law and
guilty.
NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF.
10 This bin there was n demurrer. and
Orc question presented was whether the
.I states case which entities the plain
t4s Oh relief This court holds that it
r.ts r.t and says. In our opinion.
n..r- c.ntrihut0rs have subscribed 10 a
f..I ilr "a charitable purpose and have
p.I &. over To- the hand by which il Is
f. i. received and applied. their interest
I.I control over II cease. and determine.
..j whatever jurisdiction is thereafter
nfcrfai0cf bv The courts. with respect
,. llc disposition Of this fund must be
sailed ilto active exercise, either by the
Attorney General. acting upon behalf Of
t.t public. or The trustees charged with
ts custody and administration, OF by some
person. having beneficial interest In
t. object Of thc trust" Therefore. the
.emurrcs % the hin should have been
sustained aud the bill dismissed. The
deere. appealed from is affirmed I'm this
opinion number OF authorities are cited
anQ commented upon.
Along with the record IN the above
1.t ore The proceedings upon bill filed
ly JOHN ". Williams. into which cause
l.ury EXah, by petition. the object Of
which tu was 10 recover N.5Si2) due to
sa.t Williams tor repairs 10 Moor street
Missionary Baptist church and $3.50. with
interest. due Co Henry Exlli upon juts-
mrli obtained by said ENall ana by him
assigned 20 John Oliver for the henent
Of Moore Street Industrial School. The
trustees OF the church re made de-
f.ndauts. and the pray was for an ac-
count oi the property OF the church ana
general relief This court SAWS there is 10
p~ete1cc ~ len OF any kind by VII
Il.ms Thu b'l seems 10 proceed upon
f.e idea thl, because the wor!; was do1.
upon property standing in the name Of
ihe trustees. n court ~ equity. under JUG
s.a.Hi power 90 administer trust.
should compel its payment. This cannot
b.. u.aiatiiued. Therefor. the decree OF
Csc circuit Court dismiss.ng the hii was
.eaIly TEht ana must be- affirmed
a pANVlLLE WILL CASE.
The President also handed down IN
decision 10 crews administration W.
Hatcher. etc. This case was before the
ruur, upon bills fed iu the Corporation
court " Danupe. asking the construction
Df fhe g1ll OF = 5 Jpdecran. The qu"s-
ton is. What does Mr.. Edward NJ Hatcher
take under the WIZ This court Is OF the
opinion that the viii created vested
remainder ga J.. NJ. Hatcher, which took
effect imm diately upon the death OF the
go Ia lob
was postponed until the death Of the irst
tsk.f Maria Updegraf The decree com
planned ~ was erroneous and must b
reversed.
& QUESTION OF TITLE.
Judge Rely followed. with Chapman vs..
Chairman and others. Judge Buchanan
assisting him In reading the opinion. This
controversy was between the owner of
t.s equitable title and the holders OF the
l.aal title 10 certain lands both claimed
uiier the same vendor.
Ta- appellant bases his right TO hold
OIL. lands. first, upon adverse possession
t..I.1f Tor more than fifteen years. There
.s been 10 disavowal 10y him OF the
fI. ~ HIS vendor, and the claim Of adj
N.r. possession cannot be maintained.
The next and main ground upon which
ta. appellant relies Is that the trustees
are not bona flde purchasers for value
.frN.sI MNiiIfs ICY are All4ufrllDldbtN
purchasers for value. but were they bona
lte without notice? They We're not Tn
appellant. Bernard y. Chapman, claims
under purchase from his father, Thomas
vs.: De paid an the purchase-money and
took possession. Long after the father
cUay yed the same land and others 10
Hay a Chapman IT. A. in trust 20 Sc
cure his creditors. The appellant was In
open. pc3ceable and exclusive possession
frfa land gopNgNe1 a the
trustees. OF this equitable title the trus-
tees were bound TO take notice. If they
had made due enquiry. which his posses
siJn made 81 their duty 10 do, they would
have learned tn facts upon which his
right Of possession was based, and know
ledge thereof is by the law imputed to
them Moreover one Of the truste - had
actual notice The appellant is entitled 10
ii decree against them.
The trustee urged that the appellant
had abandoned his possession because
D.. was absent from the premises for
about six years. But absence is not ahan-
Comment. and his was for good cause,
and he st!u exercised ownership by rent
ms 10 his father.
ALL ABOUT FIREWOOD.
The decree OF the Circuit Court Of
Madison county is reversed.
Judge Rely also handed In the decision
81 Clrric q ais. ". Chowning. from
Lancaster county. m which Chowning.
under an agreement attached 10 a re-
corded deed claimed the right 10 get fire.
wood on the Curr!c lands. Currie tried Ivy
l.l aud injunction % stop him. but
failed Ia this suit he ienews his efforts.
blt this court holds that the matter was
res adjudicata, and afirms the decree
appealed from.
Judge Car1wcll announced the opinion
lu Thomas. inspector vs.. Rowe. Rowe by
lill and Injunction tried 10 prevent Oys-
ter-lnsptctOr Thomas from selling his
property 10 pay moneys alleged 10 be
due % the State. for rent. etc. Thomas
d,muired % the blil, and answered 1t.
The Circuit Court Of Gloucester overruled
the demurrer ana perpetuated the in
junction. and Thomas appealed.
Objection was made 20 the jurisdiction
OF this court upon the ground that the
amount involved was not 500; but. as
Rowe had assailed IN his bin the consti-
nationality OF an act OF Assembly, this
court has jurisdiction.
Then 10 proceeds 10 reverse the court
80. .uetaluiug the demurrer and