The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-07-26
SUPREME COURT CASES.
TlTE,S TXECJTORs IGIINsT null
and STUiRT AFFIRMED.
Eakcs W. Tustin Land and Mining Com
pany, Anirmcd-Fry rs. showers, Re-
versed-ward ". Walker, Reversed.

WYTHEvILLE. VA. July 2.-spociaL--
The following opinions were handed down
by the Supreme Court Of Appeals to-day.
Tate's Executors vs.. Hul and Stuart
From the Circuit Court OF Wythe county
Affirmed: opinion by Judge keith.
The appoloes filed their bill in the Cir
cult Court Of Smyth county against rates
executor and ais, in which they ask mat
the defendants be onjoined from ASSERT
ing any right or title b. virtue Of deed
TO certain lands conveyed to appellant
tesiator under decree OF the CIRCUIT 'cni.
OF Sm}th county. claiming ihai aPpent,9
had better right 10 the said lard unaeI
"A prior deed thereto OF The nauhl.I1
court for the Western district or VII
eiaia. Tate being Il party ID the pro-
ccodings IN the bankrupt court. ana nav
ing proved his debt Ia said court tHe
Circuit Court granted the inJuncllo.
prayed for and afterwards pcrpc tuattH
It, Tatc's executors appealed, and the dt-
cree is now affirmed, the court being q.
opinion IN accordance With the case on
shilman VS.. Johnson. u Grattan. tnat Il
creditor hy Judgment Of bankrupt VINO
proves his debt in the bankruptcy pro-
Cecdiugs. and takes an active part lh
the pIOctcdir gs. cannot Afterwards 80
into Il state court 10 subject property
any ground of error which might nave
been corrected in the bankrupt court. or
bv appeal from the order or decree Of
that court
TIMBER oN MINERAL LANDS.
Rakos VS.. Tusun Land, Mining, and
Manufacturing Company. from ta.,e. ~
cult Court Of Carroll county Affirmed,
opinion boy Judge Rely.
This was q suit TO ,njOin the commis-
sion Of waste and injured ny cutuns "iiI
removing timber upon certain Hi'il'. ~
land. Both parties had at one lime el"'N'-
ed The land ana many years ago com
promised and adjusted Their feai''hN -
rights. by which the appellant aii.iioH D.
edged the title " the appellee ana De-
came lis tenant 49, .t,. Marty
appiving for the Injunction mas ci',.
ana ir.ontostihlo title 20 the ldhH' "l
which amounts 10 the same lh4Es' " - t
that the other party cannot ui9iu,.. d" o-,d
tho case Of "a landlord ana t,iai1, ''..
tbo injury Is to the substantive a..
~ the land tn the character IN W Ni. y. 3D.,
be- onioined "A court of equity VIII 'i. ..,.
tba commission Of such waste anH iiy''''
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
p p Wood aeinst James A. Maalter
49,, ale From tho Circuit Court OF " ~"
C'1nfv reversed. opinion by Jri6e
0s a,s,S Was suit Tor the srcciic per,
e,rmanre of a contract for the SAFE ci
land Plaintiffs bin failing 10 ALT ,. '.
foris Tho facts c0nstit iting perform man. 7,
moon his part. and 20 teIier wiz -. -,
bin "a sufficient deed OF c2nS' 80 ~
frc title of the property he had asi. 't 10
EN- and convey: that the court nis,
/ nudge whether he has done VIA D.,
on,l and whether the deed IS sDcn d.
I CONVEYANCE Of tine title as the tvi'i
requires. held the demurrer 81 a., e,,s-
/ PENDANT thereto should have nee" s''
tanned.
FRY W. sTOwYRs. iEVERstp.
r-, AGAINST Showers. From the Circuit
] Court OF Bland county. Reversed oi'l"-
/ ION by Judge Buchanan. go, d,.la~s-
tons Of "A deceased person as 10 'nD "a,
may be received I'm evidence, piQNlu.
/ erfrh re~son has peculiar means OF Rio"
! lng the fact I'm question. - Ia
= The deciarations ~ "a ip4 il''i ,.
/ I'm DISBURSEMENT OF his ihie' H'@s -,
] riv.n I'm evidence against the. piesenl
/ owner as a circumstance tending 10 s"o"
] mat Tie boundary is located as claiii''
( i.- tha adverse party.
~ Ba@iarations made by a stranger
a. q third party. in the presence or lne
] lqrs-owner. as to the boundaries OF hls
land he being no party 10 the cohNeis"'
ton. are not evidence against hllh'
ANOTHER r,SD cowr,sy srir
Watkins VS.. West Wytheville Land anl
/ improvement Company. From lne 0 1',tn
/ Court OF Wythe county. Reversed 'l4N
/ .0n ny judge Harrison.
/ The Court held. r.. -,
n hon sued IN a court Of law for IN
| purchase money Of land. a party mas tlD
/ rieht 10 make any defence, unner seci4oi
! ea that does not involve resclssloh Z"
/ tra contract ana rcintcstmcu- 90 az
J vendor with the title. <-,-,... -,
4 misrepresenfatiCn. tho faiSlty ol
J which viii afford srolnl OF D|'.
/ damages must be am aihrmaliNe Stat'
! rneut or affirmation OF some lact' IN con
/ Prediction to a mere expression OF OH.
/ ion. which ordinarily is not presumed L
/ deceive OF misledr. ., q. o..
! Undertaking to make improvements, 'n'
/ defendant has 4 right under ms ~
! plea of offs Ct. 10 an opportunity 90 '',' D
/ fish the fact hy such legal eF4NeAct ~ ]"
| may have TO offer.
ofpfn CASES.
Thomas VS.. Lynchburg Perpetual Buiid
! ing and Loan ASSOCIATION. J. tVln ", az
/ cult Court of Roanoke. fe,iioh lOl az
/ neal and supcrsedcas refused.
/ oakland Land Improvement 1oinpail
! vs. Ouicke a Wood. From the corpora
! tion Court OF the Clty OF ~ .s"'.i p. ,.
! tifion for writ Of error and supetsedeas
lfunfer VS.. Gillian. trustee and others
| From the Hastings Court Of the cry
| Roancke. Petition for appeal ana super
! sedeas refused. ~.
Nrorran III ais KS. Thomas ct ais. From
the Uustings Court of the city OF kda
ford. Petition for writ Of error ana sd
] porsodeas refused.
Noon VS.. NOEL Writ Of error and su
| perseloas awarded 20 Judgment on ~
/ imstiugs Court of the city OF kadioil
Bond in the penalty of 10000:
Martin ". Martin 81 ais. feuiioh io
rule for contempt Petition refused.
Norfolk and Western Railroad COMPANY
rs. Mills & Fairfax. Petition for TeheaIin,