The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-12-20
SUPREME COURT CASES.
INTEREsTING OPINION By JUDGE
CIRDWELL IN 4 BOON CASE.
Insurance Agents Written Contr acts.
fJectment to Cover Land Action for
Damages Cases.

OF Lynchburg. Affirmed. Opinion by
Judge Cardwell.
/ This is boom case" wherein the APP
| pellant alleges fraud and misrepresenta-
1 ZION, but fails to prove either. Appellant
I Is one OF a great muittude sald the
Judge, 10 wnom came oiSap.yoihtnieh'
/ with the collapse that fOlloW-l The extra
ordinary and extremely hazardous specu-
! lations prevalent at That ume, ana IL
/ came to him sooner IMAM usual, Tor ne
| says nothing could be sold at Buchanan
| the day following his purchases there.
| As a general rule. those VINO sustained
| loss laid the blame Oh everybody else
| except themselves, and In almost every
| suit o. proceeding 10 enforce the obiisa-
lions growing out OF the transactions OF
| this period. The defence has been set up
| by the ohilgors that they have been swirl
| died by false and fraudulent representa-
| tons or misrepresentatiOns, and rescls-
sion Of their contracts IL asked Tor on
these grounds. In some cases nooh the
special facts. relief may De Jusuy ue-
manded, but they are exceptional ii Inc
parties We're deceived. they were, as
rule. self-deceived. Thy simply misjudgd.
and were, therefore, disappointed IN the
The law in this and similar cases is
! settled i'm the cases, decided by this
court, of Wilson vs.. Carpenter, i Law
Register, 49, and Max Meaaows Lainldd
ard Improvement Company vs. brany,
Va Law Register. Vol. q, Al, and cases
800 INSURANCE AGENTS.
Goode ~ 60. against Georgia Home In
surance Company FROM lhe o ,irV
Court OF Flu0uicr. ReNefsel. opinion
by Judge Buchanan
r. r. II. 81 Son were general agents
Of the insurance company az CulpeVeI
and its vicinity. Insurance erected ~
Robert a son of Il. Il. H., but not me
son who was a member OF the hrm. Deed
OF trust and other insurance on the
property at time of new pohcy' "hich
facts were disclosed 10 Robert and II
was by his advice that their application
did not disclose them. Robert solicited
much business for the firm, and the nrm
knew he had solicited TINS pohcy' p4,
did not have knowledge OF otner lActs
than appeared iB the apphcation ana
policy until after the loss occurred.
Held the insurer Is responsible not oilly
for the acts Of us genera aBenss, ~
also for those OF the clerks or employees
OF the agents 10 whom they delegate
authority TO discharge their functions
within the scope Of their agency. IL nc,
ing necessary and according 10 the usual
course OF business for their agents 10
employ others TO help them IN tnelr
work, II is but just and feasohapie tH,-t
the insurance companies sh0uid De hei1
responsible not only Tor the acts OF
their agents hut also for the acts or their
agents employees within the scope OF
the agents authority.
. Delegated authority may ne again
DELEGATED by implication, when sAch oele-
cation. according TO the usage or neces-
sitiss ~ Inc business. the services OF
others are required by the agent 10 ac-
complish the work entrusted 10 MN
Generally MAY on ms, section lof, lo4
A 30 edition. agents OF insurance com
panies authorized to contract tor Ii is
receive and collect premiums ana dellFer
subordinate authority 10 eytrSl.' tns
same powers. The service . not OF suSh
a personal nature "a 10 cJine ideI inc
maxim, Delegate non potest deiesdH'
g. Robert was a competent witness, IN
der the circumstances, TO prove Tor the
plaintiffs any act or declaration OF MS
whilst placing the insurance when thes
would have had right 10 prove suG ~
act or declaration had been MADE py Il
r. H. x Son, the agents IN person, anu
they were In fact. the same as theh acts
and declarations and bound me company
as completely as II made 10y thSni, .,,a
Stearn's Executor against Rlchmonu
per-Manufacturing Company. FROM
the Chancery Court Of Richmond city
Roversed Opinion by Judge HARRISON IN
yolving the true meaning ana cohslILcno
.,f a decree OF this court IN 1890 In
NS4G &. had a water right 10 an lnsdeluhte
supply OF water al rehta OF ~,
year The paper company l1,a',u ~. "
tween s. and the water supply: larseiy
increased its own supply, which roWed
ON TO s. Litigation efSued, ana tne
Chancery Court decided Ia 1881 that ;.
was only entitled 10 the INADEQUATE suY-
nlv bareained for and that paper com
panv had the right 10 divert all IN excess
If that quantity, unless he would take
the whole flow and pay half the cost OF
''Heid. The decree Of 1890 affirmed the
court below. except that IL held the paper
company could not divert the now WIZ N
out giving ;. the election 70 tah" sne
10 opportunity TO make such election ne
could only be charged at the contract
price OF $500 per annuu; ,,,.e,
WRITTEN CONTRACTS.
Auen AGAINST crank From the Circuit
Court Of Goochland. Affirmed. Opinion
by Judge Harrison 49, ..,,..,
'Yhis case involves merely the question:
If ,-arving a written contract by parol
testimony and reafiirms the Well-settltd
principle that il may not be done. II
was a sale OF timber not less than SIX
inches in diameter, ana a SupoIu.. i5r,.
question was the right 10 be laps. me
WEIGHT of evidence touching the custom
Of the community and among lumber
dealers as TO whom the laps belong wiGh
the contract Is silent on NE suoitSe ~
that the laps belong 10 the purchasers
Of the timber. ~. ,,.,.,, 9
News Executor against Bass. Brown x
90 From the Corporation Court OF pan
vile. Reversed. Opinion by Judge card
w disposed Of his estate by will Ap.
nelIees filed a bill alleging that personal
estate would not pay Ms dents ana
asking for the usual accounts and asceI-
taipment OF liens. &c. Commissloner re-
mort showed personal assets ample 10 pay
debts Including two debts secured by
deeds of trust on the realty.
Held: /. The personal estate or de-
cedent IS the natural and primary fund
for payment Of debts and legacies, ara,
generally must be exhausted before the
realty can be made liable, and the Der
souaitv will not be eXOnerated by charge
ON me realty unless there be express
words or a plain intent In the viii 10
make such exoneratiOn. This is the plain
incarceration of the statute. Va. Code.
section 2652 and IT has been repeatedly
held that il is premature 10 decree a
sale Of realty before ad1udicating claims
and priorites OF creditors, in order 10
ascertain the precise amount chargeabie
ON the realty. IL Graft, 800, 10 Graft,
1Gi. Graft, 1876.
. The creditors secured by the deeds
Of trust. having come into the suit, must
he subject to the DEGREES Of the court
therein. and the Court could only enter
such decree as the general rule OF law
applicable TO the case would permit.
TO RECOVER LAND.
Jennings against Gravely. From the
circrit Court OF Danville Affirmed
opinion by Judge Keith. president;
Mary Graveiey and her husband brought
ejectment 10 recover land described IN
their declaration. Jennings pleaded not
eI,iifv. and gave ten days notice, under
the statute. that he would rely. among
other things for defence, on the fact
thar the property sued for was sold I'M
der a decree of the County Court and
fully pald for. although no deed was
made 10 the purchaser In said suit The
evidence OF the Graveleys showed that
they were the holders 81 the legal title
anu mad a right OF possession under IL at
the time of the commencement OF the ac-
ton. 10 Va, Isl: II Va. 23G
Held. The defence attempted. under
section oTu of the Code. OF which notice
leo on no