The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-05

claim Jurisdiction Il IL not entitled 70
exercise. q Leigh. Dos. 3l4: Minor o'o'
Barton Law Practice, So -,
John Bowlcs vs. Allen & POLLOCK. ~"
the Circuit Court OF Page county. AN a,, u
I'd. Judge Rely delivering opinion. ine'o
Is no new principle OF law In TINS ease
nor anything. indeed, but wiid Sv ,a,.,
TO promote" a part Of the biue is'Is :,
,oonnfaing into a Park Associauoh'
which failed because no contracts WIZ
ever fully executed ana delivered
WILL CAST.
,u,ard vs.. Dilard's Executor. etc,
From the Circuit Court OF Nelson couh-
~. Affirmed, Judge Buchanan denver
Ing the opinion; involving the consuuc-
ton Of a Will.
Held. 4 married woman. as to
property settled 10 her USE Is regarded
as a femme sole. and mas night 10
diepogc Of all her separate personal prop
cry and the rents and profits of her
sesarate estate. unless restrained by the
instrument creating her separate estate;
and when absolute dominion IL given her
over the separate estate, II vests in her
the absolute estate. . Graf. ISL, 80
Graf. so.
q When a power IS equivalent 10 abb
soiutc ownership. and does not involve
any personal confidence. II may be eS-
ccutcd by an attorney. Otherwise, when
not so equivalent.
3. a court OF chancery may not con-
troll trustees in the exercise Of a discre-
tionary power reposod in them by a
tcstator. nor compel them TO exercise
such discretion.
Quere: May surviving trustee exer-
else discretion vested in cO-trustees 10y
VIII; and # not. what becomes Of the
devise?
Campbelrs Administrator VS.. Richmond
and Danville Railroad Company. From
the Circuit Court of Orange county. A.
nrmed. Judge Harrison delivering the
opinion.
Demurrer 10 evidence below. and usual
verdict. subject to opinion Of the court
which sustained the demurrer.
Judge Harrison. If have carefully ex-
amined tho evidence In the record proper
TO be considered on demurrer ana
there is no proof Of negligence on the
part Of the defendant and full proof OF
| the grossest and most incomprehensiblt
! negligence on the part Of the plaintiif'
/ intestatc. This case is controiiec
/ by Inc case Of Johnsons Administrator
vs.. Chesapeake and ohio Railway Com
/ pany. and the numerous cases therein
cited. decided at the present term OF
this court
Insurance Company. Fredericksburg. Va
tbs case was before the court on Z
petition for writ OF error. The court ha'
adopted "a new rule in cases OF import
ancc, especially If involving new ques
| lions as TO writs of error-that Is, n
such cases to give reasons in case o
denial, and file same with the record
This opinion Is by the court" and tn
writ IS denied
Tho first five exceptions disclose nj
error. The sixth exception-that tn
trial court refused a stay, that defend
ant might apply TO this court Tor a wri
Of error-discloses error, but not sue
error as IS reversible
The policy was for 5000 The declara
ton sets out that fact. and in conclusio
AYERS damage In that sum- and yet. i
the body of II. AYERS that the defend
ants share Of the loss there being othe
insurance. is x 100. Verdict and iudf
ment for S3.O0O. There was no motto
for new trial I'm the lower court. whic
precludes the defendant from the relic
asked for in its petition. The error,
error 1t be. may be corrected IN the tri,
court. under Sec 1851 Of the Code. an
Section 1852 forbids this court TO awar
appeal. etc, 10 decree OF judemer
under such circumstances.