Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-09-18
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.
Opinions Handed Down Yesterday at
sfnunfou-futercstfn Cases

sTAUNTON, VA, September H.-(Spe-
cisl 1.-The Supreme Court OF Appeals to-
day handed down opinions I'm these cases:
Wilson's Administrator VS.. Wilson.
Circuit Court Of Augusta county. AZ
hrmed. opinion by Judge George NJ.
Harrison.
l. IL Is proper practice to file a sup
Elemental bill for the purpose OF intro
ducing new parties whose interest has
arisen since the institution OF the suit,
70 introduce new charges, or to put In
issue n new material fact. such az fraud.
2. Where the record SHOWS than the
supplemental bill was filed without de-
murrer or being otherwise objected 10,
and issue Joined upon IL. application 10
fits being filed cannot be made for the
first time in the appellate court
3. Objection 10 decree for errors In
the report Of a commissioner, not APP
pearng on the face OF ii. cannot avail
in the appellate court. unless founded on
exceptions taken to the report In the
court below
4. II is not proper in a creditors suit to
settle an estate, 10 unite as defendants
the debtors Of that estate, unless some
independent source OF equity shall be
made to the other parties introduced, as,
for example, where there Is an allegation
of the transfer or alienation 10 them of
some part of the debtors property In
fraud of the plaintiffs rights
o.
to enlarge and extend the jurisdiction OF
the court. but only to enable the court
to correct errors against appellees in such
cases as they would have had right TO
appeal without regard to the rule.
Didier ct ais. VS.. Patterson ct ais.
Opinion by Judge John w. Rely. Re
versed. Hastings Court of city OF Roa-
noke. This was suit 10 set ASIDE the
assignment OF a chose In action on the
ground of alleged fraud. Ii was brought
by sub-contractors against general con-
tractor, who was engaged in making
public Improvement under extensive con-
tracts with the city of Roanoke. Inc
assignment By the contractor was OF the
money due aud to become due under his
contract with the city. and was on lis
face an absolute conveyance. III was
shown 10 have been intended as. ana was
only claimed 10 be, "a mortgage or Sc
curity for existing Indebtedness. and 10
secure future loans or advances 70 De
made for the express purpose OF en-
abling the contractor 10 raise the heceS-
sary funds to carry ON the WORK, ana
meet his liabilities as they occurred. ne
had prior thereto regularly pald every
month his employees and sub-contractors'
and at the time OF the assignment there
WAS nothing due the plaintiffs, nor would
be due until the regular payday OF the
next month. No intentional fraud was
proved or claimed. but 1t was contendel
that the transaction constituted a 1raud
In law.
from any intentional fraud, the assign
ment was a. valid security for the purpose
for which il was executed.
Rusb's Executor. etc, VS.. j. Z. Steele
and others. Opinion by Judge Buchanan
Reversed. Circuit Court OF Augusta
county. -.
l. The trustee who makes an investment
under the direction and with the approyal
Of the court will not be held responsible
for It's loss, which occurred after MS
removal as trustee, and after the iuhd
had been turned over 10 the general re-
ceiver of the court.
2 1t was the duty or the general re-
ceiyer within a reasonable time after the
trust fund had been turned over 10 MN
TO ascertain when the investments maze
by the former tru; tee would become par
red by the Statute OF Limitations anu II
ne failed 10 do this and allowed one OF
the Investments 10 become barred he Will
be held responsible for the loss.
8 Where an execution Is issued on "A
judgment, and is not placed IN the halluS
OF the Sheriff or other proper oincer,
other executions may be Issued on the
Judgment within ten years from the re-
turn day Of the execution so issued,
Town of Bridgewater VS., Allemong'
Opinion by Judge James Keith. President;
Affirmed. From the Circuit Court or
Rockingham county. In this case the
town OF Bridgewater. the defendant IN
the court below, excepted 10 certain
rulings OF the court admitting evidence
over its objection. The jury found
verdict for the plaintiff. and Judgment
was entered thereon. The defendant dld
not ask for a new trial, and the court
holds that the points raised upon the
bin of exceptions taken cannot be con-
sidered. approving the decision OF TINS
court in Newberry VS.. Williams, reported
in seth Virginia. o,..,
Kirschbaum at ais. vs.. Coon. Opinion
nv Judge Cardwell. Reversed. Hastings
Court. city of Roanoke.
Crabtree VS. Old Dominion Building ana
Loan Association. Circuit Court Pulaski
county. Appeal and supersedeas. BOND
S20e.
Circujf court of Giles county. Appeal
refused. -, va o,,a
r,onrovement Company. and II. Il. Grosh
VS. same. Circuit Court of Wythe county
Petition on the part of appellants IN
formal pauperis TO have the records
printed at the expense OF the Common,
Wealth. Petitions refused Martin and
others VS.. South Salem Land Company
and others. Ordered to be removed from
Wytheville 10 Staunton.