The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-01

y
M4RRrFp woMAN's Law.
Hutchlngs' administrator against Com
mercial Bank and others +. ON me III
emit Court Of the city Of DanN- e, ana
involving the Constru ton Of the mar
ried woman's law" Acts OF lSH-S, es-
pecially as TO the curtesy I ghts OF the
Judge Harrison delivered the opinion
of the court. reversing IN part ana
affirming in part the court below. he
held: ,-t.,,.
/. The married woman's law plainly
contradicts itself-the word not in the
enroIIed bill having been left cut In the
printed acted of 1871, and left out o!
both enrolled bill and printed act or
1873: the insertion Of the wo.d not Is
necessary TO carry out the manifest IN
tent OF the legislature, and its inser-
tion by the court in case Ike this IS
the performance of a judicial duty.
.. The equitable separate estate OF
married woman must be governed an
controlled by the terms and powers, and
subject 10 the prov.s Ons and limitations
of the respective deeds under viii n the
same is held ct under the act as here
in construed the separate legal estate
of the wife is subject TO curtcsy where
the common law requisites Xst; nor
can the wife deprive A husband OF SucA
right by her soc act,
3. The death OF a tenant, who ieaseI
for a liked period, prior to the termina-
ton OF sucn period does not terminate
the liability of the tenants estate FOR the
unexpired part Of the contract but con-
tinues till the contract is fulfilled.
4. A husband, beng indebted TO his
wife, advances money for her out OF
his own means. Such an advdn- ement,
with accrued interest. l. proper cr,d
upon a settlement of his account with
his wife.
IR1y,Tr PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE
Home Building and Conveyance Com
pany against city of Roanoke and others.
From the Circuit Co"Tt Of the ~ Of
Roanoke Affirmed. Judge Cardwell de-
livering the opinion.
This case treats generally OF the que'-
ton of taking private property for public
uses without just compen at on, and de-
fines the limits in which such question
may be raised.
Roanoke City contracted with the Nor
folk and Western railroad t. build ap-
proaches to three overhead bridges.
which the railroad company agreed to
construct across streets in that city.
one of these approach 5 tIenched upon
lot owned by the bu ldinS association,
which enjoined the city from work on
peasaton for injury TO its property. In
junction dissolved. and appeal to this
court. Is this such a taking Of private
property thOut cOmpeusat on as IL
contemplated by the Constitution OF Viz
gipis Judge Cardwell held:
l. The right of a city under its charter
TO raise or lower the grade Cf it, streets
is well established.
,. \ public corporation, clothed with
authority by the Legislature 10 improve
its public highways Cor the public con-
venicnce. may place additional burdens
upon the servitude Of a pull C hig way
such as a private corporation could not
do.
5. Tn such case the public cOip1rat on
is an agent OF the State and performs a
public duty imposed upon It by the Leg
stature; and persons ap oia,cd or au-
thorized by law TO make or improve a
publ highway are rot iaile for cons g.
quential damages II acting vi hin tn ir
jurisdiction. and with care and ski
I. The State holds It's hig ways in trust
for the public. and improvements made
under its authority are the acts OF the
State, which IS exempt from coercion by
suit except by its own consent. Acts
done in the proper ex rcise of govern
mental power, and not directly encroac1-
ing upon private pIopriy, thou their
consequences may impair its use. are
not a taking within the constitutional
provision.
>. \ clause in a charter requ T ne all
contracts for erecting public improve
ments to be let to the lowest bidder,
&c. is no inhibition on the city from
constructing such improvements under
the direction of its own engineers and
officers.