Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-06-14

otrcim8f8ocea OK the S&<<, tes~st~' "'s''
the relations Of the parties. ths TRANSACT
lions BETWEEN them. lacfes IN the asser-
ton Of the claim. and lapse OF time,
were sufficient to raise the presumption
OF payment, and TO satisfy tue court That
the claim had been settled.
fAgorio vs. Dozier. From the corpora
ton Court OF the city Of Norfolk. Decree
OF the court below affirmed. Opinion ~
Judge Keith. In 1857 Robert Rhea. OF the
one part, and Clement Hill ana Manaia.
hts wife, by deed, undertook TO exchange
Iota In the city Of Norfolk. BY inadyer-
tence the names OF Hin and wife were
omitted from the deed as grantees, enc
court holds that by looking to the whole
paper Il may supply the nameF OF the
grantees. and that there being no iatcht
ambiguity In the instrumept. the court
canI.ot consider extrinsic evidence to AID
II in It's Interpretation; that being aeea
of exchange. the grantor or the one iot
must by necessity be the grantee o. tns
other. and n Is. therefore. considered
that the conveyance must be read 50
though the names Of Clement Hill ana
Mabala. his wife, had been inserted as
grantees from Rhea. A court OF law mas
no power either to reform deed or 10
set up and execute @ resulting trust.
Harvey Austin vs.. Commonwealth
From the Circuit Court OF Pulaski county.
Judgment reversed
William NJ. Young vs.. Commonwealth:
Writ of error TO the Circuit Court 81
Pulaski county. Judgment reversed.
MARRIED WOMEN
Fifer. ETC., VS. Tyler. etc. From the
Circuit Court OF Loudoun county. AZ
firmed. Opinion by Judge Buchanan. The
interesting points decided IN TINS cas-
were:
A court of equity has jurisdiction TO
enioin the sale of a married womane
equitable. separate estate, levied upon
for her husbands debts, even though
there were a complete and adequate
remedy at law under section 1888 OK tne
Code. since courts OF equity had sucn
jurisdiction before that statute was
passed. -
A married woman who united Win
her husband In deed OF trust 10 secure
his individual debts upon her inherited
lands, In the absence OF any agreement
to the contrary, is treated as his surety.
and II her interest In the lands have 10
be subjected for the payment OF sucn
debts IL is a good consideration Tor settle
ment upon her by her husband TO the
| extent OF the consideration furnished.
The engagements OF married woman
| can only be enforced against the equitaple
| separate estate which she held at the
| time OF entering into the engagement or
| 80 much thereof as she owns when the
decree is rendered.
PARTNERSHIP CASE.
| shipman VS.. Fletcher. From the Car
| cult Court OF the city of Alexandra Az
frmed. Judge Rely dehverns cp'n,vn'
This was a suit brought for the settle
ment of the partnership matters OF John
| i. Shipman and William Fletcher, ana
| involved very complicated accounts. Tne
| questions on the appeal arose upon ex-
| ceptions to the report OF the commas
sioner to whom the matters were re-
| ferred for settlement and report. some
| OF the exceptions were sustained by the
| lower court and others overruled. me
report of the commissioner was based
| upon the books AMI papers Of the par
| ties. and also upon the dispositions OF
| witnesses, much of whose testimony was
| conflicting In the~spinIon the weight
| to be given TO the report OF commits
sioner was discussed, and the following
held;
| 1. That the report OF a commissioner is
| to be taken as correct. unless except
ed 20.
Q. That when excepted to. II is the
| province and duty of the court to ex-
anime the evidence and test the correct
| ness OF the finding OF the commissioner;
and may come to a different conclusion.
3. And IL may do this. even where the
testimony is conflicting, unless the EVIL
dence is evenly balanced, and the con-
illusions OF the commissioner are sus-
tanned by competent and unimpeached
| witnesses
T. That where no exception Is taken
to the report of the commissioner. the
appellate court may not consider mat
ter which may be affected by extraneous
testimony. These rules were followed
by the Circuit Court, which was sus-
tanned in all OF its rulings.
Fletcher vs. Shipman. From the Cir
cult Court OF the city of Alexandria. Az
firmed. Opinion delivered by Judge Rely.
This appeal was heard along with the
appeal in the case of Shipman VS.. Fletch'
err, and the subject-matter OF this suit
and OF the appeal were directly involved
| in that case.
Lightfoots administrator vs.. Greens
executor From the Circuit Court OF
Culpeper county. Decree reversed. Opin
ion by Judge Cardwell
OTHER PROCEEDINGS.
The other proceedings OF the court were
as follows:
Fouk and others VS. Strasburg Stone
and Earthenware Manufacturing Com
pany. From the Circuit Court OF shenan'
doah county. Appeal refused.
| PGasey VS.. chesapeake and ONO Rail'
way Company. From the Circuit Court
Of Allegheny county. Writ Of error re-
fused.
Amherst Development Company and
Robert TAFT VS.. Robert Bruce. From the
Circuit Court of Amherst county. Appeal
refused.
Ballou VS.. Ballou. From the Corpora
ton Court Of the city OF Lynchburg. Ap.
peal and supersedeas awarded-bond In
the penalty of 500.
Masonic Temple Association vs.. a. j
Banks. From the Hastings Court OF tbs
city OF Roanoke. Appeal and superseded.
awarded Bond In the penalty OF 1900.
: George ID. Coons. administrator Of
George ID. Freeman. deceased, vs.. Buffers
Appeal and supersedeas awarded TO de
cree to the Circuit Court OF CulpepeI
county No bond required.
Rakes vs. Commonwealth. From tn
Circuit Court of Carroll county. Writ o.
error dismissed for failure to pay writ
tax
James c. Cochran vs. London Assurance
Company. From the Circuit Court o.
Rockingham county. Writ OF error am
supersedeas awarded. Bond in penalt,
OF seoo
Adkins VS.. Fishburn Brothers. From
the Corporation Court OF the city OF Roa
| nnke pstiflon for writ Of error refused.