Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-13

to passengers only. but where the ds,-
ger OF the trespasscr In discovered, Il
then becomes the duty OF the -ailroai
company 10 avoid the nf.iction of injury
without regard for the fact that the tres
passer was himself guilty of contribu D. V
negligence IL Is then incumbent upon
the company to do what can be done con-
sistentiy with its higher duty to others to
save the trespasser from the consequcr ces
OF his own. Improper act'
After discussing the evidence In the
case and pointing out the negligence on
the part OF the engineer. the court affirms
the judgment OF the lower court.
RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN.
In the case OF the Norfolk and Western
Railroad Company against Charles l..
Dougherty and Ella f. Dougherty. his
wife. the decision was prepared and read
by Judge Harrison. and the effect was
TO reverse the Judgment OF the Corpora
ton Court OF Norfolk. and to enter such
judgment on the demurrer in the case
as ought to have been entered I'm the
court below. This action was brought
TO recover damages for injuries received
by Mrs. Dougherty by train of the Nor
FOLK and Western collding with her team
at a public crossing near Norfolk. The
case was one affecting the right OF the
this matter. section 22SS OF the Code
clearly provides that as TO matters con-
neotcd with. relating 10, or affecting the
separate estate Of married woman. she
may sue and be sued i'm the same man.
ner, and there shall be the same rene
dies in respect thereof Cor and against
her and her said estate as If she were
married.
AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.
The opinion goes on to say: 1.-THE hus-
band having no legal interest whatever
IN the result OF this suit and the damages
involved being property that the wife
must hold. as separate estate to her sole
use. free from the Interference or control
OF the husband and having the same
powers and rights conferred upon her TO
sue and be sued that any other single
individual has, It seems plain that the
husband was not a property party to
the suit AT common law the husband
must sue alone for any wrong done him,
and now, under the statutes referred TO-
the VIE must also sue alone. wren she
asks FOR damages for wrong sustained
by her In this suit the writ and
the declaration were in the name of the
husband and the wife. and the verdict
and judgment were in the name OF the
wife alone. This was equivalent to dis
missing tho suit as to her husband. and
at the time this verdict and Judgment
were rendered such a proceeding was not
permissible in a common law suit
since this suit was brought. by an
act approved February q. 1894 the Legis-
lature has provided that whenever il
shall appear in any action at law or suit
In equity. by the pleadings or otherwise,
that there has been a misionder of par
ties. plaintiff or defendant. the court
may order the action or suit TO abate as
TO any party improperly joined, and
TO proceed by or against the others as
II such misjoinders had not been made
This desirable addition to our statute
law comes too late to benefit the plain
tiff in error here. The misioinders of
parties being a fatal defect. il is unnec-
essary TO consider the other questions
raised, except to say that we have reach
ed thie conclusion upon the technical
question involved with less regret, be-
cause. after careful consideration Of
the whole case we are of opinion that the
defendant in error failed TO make out a
case that entitled her to recover. and
therefore If that branch of the case had
been reached. the view taken by this
court would have been adverse TO her
claim upon the merits.
THE judgment must be reversed and
the verdict set aside. and this court will
enter such judgment on the demurrer as
the court below ought to have entered"
OTHER SUPREME COURT CASES.
Waverly Water Front Company We.
White and others. Appeal and super
sedeas.
Williams vs.. Commonwealth and
others Appeal and supersedeas
Lake VS.. Starke. trustee and others.
Appeal refused.
Wilkinson VS.. Harvey. Writ OF error
refused
Grubbs and others VS. National Life
Insurance Company. From Circuit Court
OF Richmond Writ OF error refused
Grubbs and others VS.. Union Life In
surance Company. Writ Of error refused
Robertson VS.. Smith and others. Passed
until 142 is reached
Russell and others VS.. Almond. Sub
mitted.
Duval vs. Chelf & Co. Argued
Stearns's Executor VS.. Richmond
Paper Manufacturing Company. Argued
T. c. Gordon and +. w. Christian. Esqs.
for appellee and continued until to-day.
When this case is concluded the court
will hear no further argument during the
term.
S. Hamilton Graves. ESQ. qualified to
practice as counsel in this court