Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-09-27
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.
Several Opinions Handed Down-The
Regular Proceedings.

STAIfNTON. September 26.-(Special.)-
The following opinions were handed down
I'm the Supreme Court OF Appeals to-day:
Penn VS.. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
company. From the Circuit Court OF
Botetonrt county. Opinion by Judge
Jaues Keith. president. Reversed.
In this case Mrs Penn sold small
parcel of land to the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Company. with the privi-
lege Of taking water from spring, for
the purpose of erecting tank thereon
The Circuit Court held that the railroad
| company having come. into possession
| Of the land prior To the partition pro-
/ ceedings under which Mrs. Penn claimed.
! The proceeds OF the sale should be dis
tributcd among al OF the fopa ,, ',,.,de
| The. court here was Of opinion tnat Mrs'
! Penn held as a purchases, ana not AZ
] coparcener: that the land purchased Dy
/ her embraced a spring ana GROUND upo,
| which the water-tank had been erected.
and that when she sold TO the chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company she hau no
notice Of any right adverse To hers, anu
there was nothing in the RECORD OF ihe
proceedings of the partition suit under
which she bought to put her upon en-
uuiry. and that, therefore. she was en-
titled to recover the price Tor wnich s"e
had sold 20 the railroad company
From the Circuit Court Of Botetourt coun-
Is. Opinion by Judge James Keith, pfesl-
dent. Reversed.
In this case the decree of the court be-
low held certain deeds from W. H. 'arter
10 lss wife To be fraudulent ana Vold as
TO his creditors. but refused to give the
creditor. at whose suit the decree avoid
ing these conveydnces was MADE. iieh
thereon. as provided by the stature ror
this cause only the decree complained
Of was reversed. and the lien of the APP
pellant established.
Moore VS.. Triplett. From the Circuit
Court of Shenandoah county. opinion by
Judge John ". Rely. Reversed
This was a suit brought by creditors To
set aside two deeds on the ground OF
fraud. II involved no particular cues,
tion of law, but whether the question Oh
fraud was proved by the evidence. Inc
court below held that the fraud was SIS
tablished but this court decided that
upon a review of the whole evidence tle
fraud was not made out. and, therefore
reversed the decree of the lower court.
Dadisman VS.. Long. From the circuit
Court of Page county. Opinion by Judge
r. II. Cardwell. Affirmed.
Mallnda Pillow and others VS.. South
west Virginia Improvement company
From the Circuit Court Of Tazewell coun-
~. Reversed. Opinion by Judge John a
Buchanan.
Held /. Objection to the competency Of
witness ought TO be made. where his
amined in chief, at least it cannot be
made after cross-exsmination.
. The statute authorizing a court OF
chancery IN a partition suit TO settle an
questions of law which may arise in such
cases IL constitutional and valid.
3 A court of law IN partition suit can
settle all questions Of title arising there
in. although the defendant denies the
right of the complainant TO partition. and
claims to hold adversely to him, If the
defendant claims under one who was a
Joint owner with the complainant, or
those under whom he claims.
(. A court of equity in Virginia cannot
partition lands lying in West Virginia.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Central Land Company VS. Obenchain.
From the Circuit Court Of Botetourt coun-
ty. Reversed. Opinion by Judge John y.
Buchanan.
Held that persons engaged in promoting
the formation and organization of joint
stock company stand in iiduciary rela-
ton TO the new company, and VIII not be
permitted To make any profits out OF con-
tracts made for the benefit of the new
company; and all profits and advantages
made or contracted for by them in the
business beyond the ordinary compensa-
ton TO be paid them by the company, are
for the benefit of the company.
Carter Strouther vs.. the Commonwealth.
From the Corporation Court Of the city
of Winchester. Reversed. Opinion by
Judge George NJ. Harrison
In this case StrOuth6r stole a horse In
Berkeley county. w. Va. and brought the
same into this state, and was arrested.
tried. and convicted in Winchester. Va.
The question determined is one Of juris-
dicticn.
The court holds that the States are sep
arate and Independent: that in the admin
istraton of criminal law they are sOvei-
egn: and in their respective jurisdictions
and the laws which regulate their inter
nal police they are as foreign TO one an
10. T.
ments: and. therefore, except In those
States where statutory provision Is made
for the punishment Of crimes committed in
another jurisdiction. the common law pre-
walls. which furnishes no Warrant for
the conviction in this State of one who
steals property in another state ana
brings IL within our borders; that under
Article 4. section 2. OF the Constitution
Of the United States which provides that
"a person charged in any State with
treason, felony. or other crime who shall
flee from Justice and shall he found In
another. shall, on demand Of the eNecu-
tive authority OF the state from which |
he fed, be delivered up 10 be removed |
to the State having jurisdiction OF the
crime" we sustain no relation 10 the |
accused when arrested here. charged with |
stealing in place beyond the jurisdiction |
OF this State, than that Of OBTAINING him |
as fugitive from Justice |
until the reQusition provided for can be |
secured, to return him TO the jurisdiction |
where his CRIME WIS committed. For |
these reasons the Corporation Court OF |
Winchester Is Ieclared To have been |
without jurisdiction TO Try the plaintiff In |
error. and its judgment is reversed
Spilman. etc. ". Gilpn. From the |
Circuit Court OF Page county. Opinion |
by Judge Harrison. Affirmed
OTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE |
COURT
Epps and others vs.. Wiliams's Admins |
traitor and others. From the Circuit |
Court OF Nottoway county, Appeal and |
awarded; bond in the penalty |
Of $500
TAYLOR and others VS.. John Mahoney. |
From the Court Of Law and Chancery |
OF the city OF Norfolk Appeal aud |
supersedeas awarded; bond in the penalty |
Of 5000.
Simon ct ais. VS.. Ellison ct ais. From |
the Circuit Court OF Washington county |
The petition for Tehearing of the de-
cree entered In this cause at Wytheville |
was denied.
Deaneale VS. Brock. From the Circuit
Court of Rockingham county. This case,
In which the petition for an appeal was |
refused by all of the judges. was before |
the count upon motion 10 reconsider
that refusal and TO grant an appeal
The petition for the appeal was again
refused.