Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-06

We're nut TO tEeir erection VEtlntf h'y
would take under the vii. or against u,
and that the action OF the court In elect
ing Tor them 60 take Under the VIII was
proper.
"The only question. therefore, 10 be de-
cided by this court Is whether the tcs-
tator intended by the seventh clause Of
his will TO devise the whole OF the in
surance on his life. or only the one policy
OF 5000, which he had the right 10 de-
wise Various rules OF construction have
been invoked by counsel for our guidance
IN this construction. none Of which are
needed in our opinion.
HIS LANGUAGE WAS PLAIN.
"Thc language used by the testator
shows clearly what he intended. To Miss
Rogers ne says: I cave In fee-simple
O-3) one third OF my entire estate-that Is.
after paying the above legac.es." Then,
In order 10 make clear his meaning, he
adds: I mean by my entire estate. all
Of my life-insurance, real estate. and
personal property From this language,
IL Is clear that he intended TO devise all
OF the policies of insurance which he had
taken out and held upon his life. and
not merely one of them. lie never would
have used the words. all Of my life in
surance, II he had Intended 70 devise 5000
on Y OF the $4,000 for which his life was
insured
I'VE are Of the opinion that the de-
cree appealed from is clearly right, and
must be affirm d
Insurance Policy Involved.
a very Interesting opinion relative TO a
transfer Of insurance was submitted by
Judge Rely in the suit of Spooners Adj
mnistrator against Hilbsh's Executor
and others. After citing a number Of
authorities to bear out the principle that
a personal representative cannot be heard
10 impeach as fraudulent a transaction OF
his decedent in his lifetime, the court goes
on To- say that the main purpose OF
this suit was TO administer TO the estate
Of the decedent, L. c. Hilb!sh, to ascer-
tain the debts. collect the assets. and
subject them to the payment OF the
debts. Among the assets there was
alleged in the will to be a certain policy
Of insurance. which had been taken out
by the decedent in his own life and for
his own benefit The money due upon it
was needed for the payment Of his debts.
The policy was claimed by Spooner. under
an alleged assignment from the decedent.
The assignment was contested by the
plaintiff. who sought TO recover and sub
ject the proceeds of the policy 10 the
payment of the debts. 1t was shown tina
no consideration was given for the a
signment of the insurance, and that the
duplicate of the transfer. which had been
sent to Hlbish by the company. had
never been given to SpoOner. and that
it could not be found among the assets
OF the deceased.
In this connection, the Court of Appeals
holds: "A gift is a contract without
consideration, and to be valid must be
executed. a valid gift is, therefore. a
contract executed. Ii is to be executed
by the actual delivery by the donor to
the donee. or to some one for him, of
the thing given, or by the delivery OF
the means Of obtaining the subject OF
the gift. without further act Of the donor
TO enable the dOnee to reduce IL to his
own possession" A great many au-
thorities are here referred TO. "Our con-
clusion is that, however much Hilbish
may have intended at one time to assign
the policy to Spooner. he never executed
his intention. and that the policy re-
NAMED his property, and constituted as
sets Of his estate
The DEGREES Of the Circuit Court Of
AIbemarle are, therefore. affirmed.
Question ms to Commissions.
Judge r. H. Caldwell handed down the
decision I'm the case of Peters's Receiver
against Anderson This was the second
appeal in this case, the parties occupying
the same relation to each other as form
erly. The suit was that of W. III. Peters.
receiver Of the Exchange National Bank
of Norfolk who, having become the owner
of Dismal Swamp Canal Comp9ny's pro-
pertv and franchises. purchased at a
sale thereof for the benefit Of the EX-
change National Bank. in the SUIT OF
A p Thorn and others against the DIS
NAL Swamp Canal Company and others
negotiated sale of the properly TO
Eugene r. Lynch and John c. Short,
bv the name OF the Norfolk and North
Carolina Canal Company. through }. ,.
Il. Anderson. and reported the sale to
Lynch and Short 10 the Corporation
Court of Norfolk city, and peutioned
the court to confirm the sale. which was
done. The petition asking the confirma-
ton Of the sale stated that the price TO
be paid was $4,000 less commission or
10 per cent TO be paid to Anderson Tor
his services in negotiating the sale; that
$4,000 was 10 be paid in cash. the balance
i'm six months. etc The $4,000 was paid
and the deed Of trust executed to secure
the remaining unpaid $4,000
Afterwards Anderson claimed his COM
missions on the whole sale out Of the
cash payment of $1,000 and II was al
lowed by decree of the Corporation
Court Of Norfolk. but upon an appeal
10 the Court of Appeals the decree Of
the Corporation Court was reversed, this
court holding that Anderson was only
entitled to his Droportionate share Of
the cash payment. and so with respect
to any payments that might be made.
From the facts set forth in the opin-
ior il seems that the property was re-
oil afntt e,a
for w. b. Brooks and associates. for
$1,000. the highest bid offered; that be-
fore the second sale was ordered TO be
made. the receiver. in order to protect his
trust and prevent a sacrifice OF the pro-
perty. which had long remained UNI
salable. required the said Ballantine 10
guarantee that the same should bring at
least $4,000 This amount was accord
ingly paid. and Anderson claimed his
commissions on 42,SSl.JO of this amount.
This Receiver Peters refused to nav. on
the ground that. but for the guarantee
he had demanded of Ballantine. the pro-
perty would have gone for $40 100. . The
court holds that the fact that Peters had
required a guarantee did not affect An
dorson's claim. and that the decree of
that (the Supreme) court. which has been
under consideration. was without error
and therefore affirmed. Judge Theodore
s Garnett, of Norfolk. was counsel for
the appellant. and Messrs. James f.
Duncan and Nicely & Seldner Tor the
appellees
Contract with Agents.
Tho case of Ferguson q Hutter
against the Grottoes Company. from
the Corporation Court of the city
OF Lynchburg, was decided. the opinion
being handed down by Judge George Nj.
Harrison. This action was brought by
the plaintiffs in error as assisnees OF
Ferguson. 10 recover certain commission
claimed TO be due for stock sold by their
assignor. This contract between the par
ties in question was made al Sheridan.
Rockingham county, Va. the place OF