Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-12-04

thof tho defendant was not liable for the
injury sustained bv the plaintiff. II the
person employed by him 10 build the
kilns was selected with due care and
exercised an Independent employment
The instruction Of the lower court ignores
the important question Of the defendant $
liability. and the opinion CONSIDERS the
exception by the plaintiff thereto well
taken. The facts proved in the lower
court clearly show that Callona was an
independent contractor. and that the ue-
PENDANT was not liable to the plaintiff Tor
the injury sustained by her. For these
reasons the judgment of the Hastings
Court Of Portsmouth is reversed.
sustrins the Norfolk Court.
Judge Keith decided the case Of the
BOSTON Blower Company vs.. the Carmen
Lumber Company ct ais. affirming the
decree OF the Hastings Court Of the city
of Norfolk The Boston Blower Com
pany. incorporated under the laws OF
Massachusetts. brought a suit in chan
Gerry in the Corporation Court Of Norfoik
against the Carmen Lumber Company
The suit was for the purpose Of COM
uellinC the lumber company 10 pay $o7D'
which they claimed, was not due Dy
them. The alleged obligation was sofa
and rosold. and the Supreme Court con-
tended that the bill was properly ois-
missed.
Judgment Was Affirmed.
The case Of the Virginia and Tennessee
Coal and Irot Company a. ais. VS. VIII
liam Fields ct ais. Is an action OF eject
ment. instituted in the Circuit Court OF
Wise county by Aaron II. Nash, against
James Wright for the recovery OF GER
tain tract Of land. The opinion was
handed down by Judge Keith. Nasn dleu
and the suit was revived In the name or
his devisees as plaintiffs. James Nllsht
the defendant. died. and the suit was re-
vived in the name Of his heirs at law, ana
at a subsequent term the Virginia ana
Tennessee Coal and Iron Company was
upon its petition. admitted a party. ana IS
the active and substantial defendant
The case was tried before jury, and a
verdict and judgment rendered Tor lhe
plaintiffs.
Duriug the progress Of the trial num-
her Of exceptions were taken, ana 'he
1ofondont ouplied for and obtained q
writ of error from the Supreme Court
The cause was retired. and after the
verdict had been rendered. and the Juds-
mont entered thereon. the defendants
moved i'm arrest Of judgment. because the
court erred in requiring defendants 70
file the particulars Of their defence; ana
secondly. because the court erred IN re-
fusing TO require plaintiff TO file partlcu-
lars of their ground Of recovery. Inc
count according TO the opinion properly
overruled the motion I'm arrest Of Judg-
ment. on the whole. the record discloses
mo- error TO the prejudice Of the DEFEND
ants. and hence the opinion afhrmins the
judgment.
Rcceivership Case from DanFiiie.
Traoe Keith handed down the opinion
IN the case Of Corbn vs.. Patton. receiver
for the firm Of ". s. Patton, sons ~ CO.
of Danvine. Nr. Patton instituted SUI
I'm the Hastings Court Of DanVilie against
r. a. Corbin. surviving partner OF l. D.
Corbin & Co., on a note when hdd Deen
evecuted by the hrm FOR 5000 recovering
a Judgment with per cent. interest
rra1,or-sou Corhin filed a bin Of Injunction.
ollerinq that usurious interest had been
collected on the note. The plaintn prays
that the amount i'm interest paid IN excess
Of the lawful rate be credited on the note
" +. Corbin denied that the interest col
lected was under the law usurlous. ne
Hastings Court of Danyille ordered the
amounts as stated TO be credited on the
note. and the Supreme Court aihrms ihe
decree.
An Action for SANDER.
The case Of Corr VS. Lewis was an ac-
ton Of trcspass on the case for SANDER
and the opinion was handed down by
Judge Harrison a general demurrer 10
the declaration was OVerruled, ana the
rlea of not guilty was entered. The jury
rat,irned verdict for the defendant. ana
the plaintf moved TO set the verdict aside
as contrary 10 law and evidence. Inc
court also overruled this motion. ms
last refusal on the part of the court IS
the only ground of error assigned, anu
The oplnion. after reviewing the evidence
afnrms the decision Of the lower court.
Another Case from Norfolk.
BENJAMIN & CO. VS.. Madden is the title
~ on opinion handed down by Judge
pf.lv mo controversy in this case is
between the vendee and an execution
creditor Of the vendor. At the trial the
narties waived a jury and submitted the
case upon an agreed statement or the
facts to the decision Of the Corporation
Court of Norfolk. which gave JudbIhen t
i'm favor Of the vendee. The plalnuIs ln
error rely mainly for the reversal OF the
Judgment Of the court upon the piesuihP-
ZION of fraud. which the law infers from
Ne retention by the vendor Of the posses
sion Of personal property after IFS sale.
II
the Judgment is affirmed
Lots sold to Pay Notes.
Judge Buchanan handed down the
opinion in the case Of Ferguson q
I1,ios vs Goocb. trustee. The case comes
I'd on an appeal from the Circuit Court
of Roanoke. and involves the right OF
certain holders Of property 10 sen inc
Same 10 secure payment Of certain notes.
me lower court decreed that the lots
sbould be sold. and the Supreme Court
after reviewing all the evidence adduced'
decides that the lower court was not III
error. and anirms the decree
pcciJed AGAINST the Railroad.
The case Of Patterson, trustee. VS.. the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway company
originated I'm the Circuit Court Oh Mel
son. TO recover damages ior the ue-
strllction of a barn and It's contents al
leeed to have been caused by hre COM
municated from the engine OF the ue-
fendant. judge Harrison handed down
the opinion. There were TWO tid.S ~
tho cause. on the first verdict ioi
q 0oo was found. which was set aside,
and ON the second a verdict was 1ound
gor the defendant. bill Of exceptions
was taken 10 the first trial, and the evi-
dence I'm the case being reviewed the
Judgment Of the lower court Is reversed,
inc court having been IN error wheh u
set the original verdict aside.
The Cause Remnnded.
Judge Cardwem delivered the opinion
In the case of the Baltimore ana ONO
Railroad Company VS.. w. II. Fewss Exc
cutors. This is an action OF trespaS-
brought in the Circuit Court OF shehah-
dooh by Fews's Executor against the
baltimore and Ohio railroad. 10 recover
DAMAGES for the death OF the pl.lhtili
..ntnlnr roNs was klled by tfhlh Oc-