Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-10-02
Ale,xa,','af|aris 6''Eass''tte.

Daily one year, $6 ) SIX months $3 ;onomonth
| 90 cents .s,f
T iTrri,.Wsskly on one yesr 81 'd az months 81;
All transient advertisements must be paid for
in advance iliIh. siisn
7 ENTERED at the Postofice Alexandra, Virgin.
H., as second class matter ~ :, e5nrii 5
-------------
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
Among the decisions rendered by the
Court of Appeals at Staunton last week
I'were the following. brief, mention of
which has heretofore been made:
|G Penn VS.. Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way Company. From the Circuit Court
of Botetourt county. Opinion by Judge
James Keith, president-reversed.
In this case Mrs. Penn sold small
parcel of land to.the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Company, with the priyi-
lege of taking water from a spring, for
the purpose Of erecting tank thereon.
The Circuit Court held that the railroad
company having come into possession
of the land prior to. the partition pro
ceeding under which Mrs. Penn claim
ed, the proceeds of the sale should be
distributed among all the coparceners,
among whom partition had been made.
The court here was of opinion that Mrs.
Penn held as purchaser, and not as a
coparcener; that the land purchased by
her embraced a spring and ground upon
which the water.tank had been erect
ed, /, and that when she sold to the Ches-
speak and Ohio Railway Company she
had no notice of any right adverse to
hers, and there was nothingain the
record ofthe proceedings ofthe parti-;
ton suit under which she bought to put,
her upon enquiry, and that, therefore,.
she was entitled to recover the price for
which she had sold to the railroad COM
pany.. -qefr s,t .,e-.lf.,
Noyes & Co. VS., Carter and others.
From Circuit Court of Botetourt coun-
| ty. Opinion by Judge James Keith,
president. Reversed. In this case the
decree of the court below held certain
deeds from w. Il. Carter to his wife to
befraudulent and void as to his credi-
tors, but refused to give the creditor, at
whose suit the decree avoiding these
conveyances was made, q lien thereon,
as provided by the statute. For this
cause only the decree complained of
was reversed, and the lien of the appel
liant established. 4,.le i'a9F5ii q
Moore Tvs. nTriplett. From the Cir
cult Court. of Shenandoah county.
Opinion by Judge John w. Reilly. Re;
versed. aus "a q. ~. ;:
This was a suit brought by creditors
to set aside twoideeds on background of
fraud.atIt involved no particular ques-
tion of law, but whether the question
of fraud was proved by the evidence.
The court below held. that the fraud
was established, but this court decided
that upon q review Of the whole evil
dence the fraud was not made out, and,
therefore, reversed the decree of the
lower court. ,,s.s-,--,l.-ls' l.,..,s-
Malinda Pillow and others ys. South
west Virginia Improvement Company.
From the Circuit Court of Tazewell
county. Reversed. Opinion by Judge
John A Buchanan held
1. Objection. to the competency
of a witness ought to be made, where
his incompetency is known, before he
is examined in chief, at least, it cannot
besmadey after cross-examination.. a.
q. The statute authorizing a court of
cbancery in partition suitlto settle all
questions of law which may arise in
such cases is constitutional and valid.
3. A court of law in partition suit
can settle all questions of title arising
herein,slthough the defendant denies
the right of; the complainant to parti-
tion, and claims to hold adversely to
him, if the defendant claims under one
whoTwas joint owner with the COM
plainant, or those under whom he
claims. .tsas giaas as.f
u,4s a. court of equity in Virginia can
not partition lands lying in, West Viz
ginia.i,ui .liq,s., ,..a .e.tr a.fs
Central Land Company VS.. Oben-
ehain.n.F From the Circuit Court of Bot
etourt county. Reversed. Opinion by
Judge John-A.- Buchanan. Held that
persons engaged in promoting the, for
nation and organization of a Joint stock
company stand in a fduciary relation
to the new company, ndf'will mot be
permitted to make any profits out of
contracts made, for the, benefit of the
new company; and ,all profits and ad-
vantages made or, contracted for by
them in the business; beyond the ordi-
nary compensation to be paid them by
the company, are for the benefit of the
company. .s, =. e.as % sg
Carter Strouther VS.. the Common
wealth. From the Corporation Court
of the city of Winchester. Reversed.
| 0n;pion hx, Tndoa noor0o M Horrienn