Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-03
THE GARLAND CASE.
important Opinion Rendered In Il In
the Suprsms Court Of Appeals.
THE powLEs DAMAGE SUIT.
Judgment of the Lower Tribunal
Reversed - Controversy Over
small strtn of Land-severaI Other
pecisions Handed Down.


of any public importance. The case o.
Garlands Administrator and others
against Garland's Administrator etc.
from the Circuit Court Of LynehburS'
involves quite large estate. 1t was
twice appealed 10 the Court OF Appears
and the decision rendered yesterday re-
verses the decree Of the lower trlpuna'
OF MAY 16. 1896, and remands the causes
10 the Circuit Court.
The opinion, which was prepared py
Judge Cardweil. is a most exhaustive
document. dealing with every legal phase
OF the controversy.
great proportion of the property i
question is situated in Mississippi
CLAIMED A LIFE ESTATE.
one OF the points contended for was
that under the ninth clause OF the VIII
of Samuel Garland, Sr., Burr Garland
took a life estate in the corpus or the
legacy and that he was entitled abso-
lutely to the profits, and that these
profits should be subjected to the pay
Inent ia part OF the decree for StllS0.SS
against Burr Garland in the Mississippi
court The lower court decided that Burr
Garland took the profits absolutely, ana
that the profits were liable 10 all MS
debts alike, whether contracted Tor MS
support or not, and that the corpus
of this legacy passed IN remainder 10
Mrs. Paulina Il. Morriss and her children
1t was from the decree OF the lowFr
court deciding this question that the
second cause came to the Supreme Court
on appeal. on this appeal the higher tri-
ha
held that under the ninth clause OF the
will of Samuel Garland. ST.. Burr Garland
took no absolute estate, but only quail
fed right 10 a support from the profits,
subject TO no liabilities, except for sup
plies for support. and that the unex-
pended profits at his deetn passed 10 the
remaindermen.
CLAIMS WE'RE NOT ASSERTED.
The decision, after disposing of a num-
Der OF minor points in the case, goes on
10 state that Burr Garland qualified as
administrator c. I. a. of Samuel Garland,
Sr. In Mississippi, and had charge OF
the whole estate until September 1864,
when Mrs. Garland was assigned her half
interest in the estate in Mississippi, 10
which she was entitled under the laws
of that State there being no children
by the marriage with the testatOr), and
at the same time that this division of the
Mississippi property was made Burr Gar
land selected under the ninth clause OF
the viii the Tudor Hail. plantation, with
the personal property thereon. In 1853 he
came to Virginia and died. 1t does not
appear that Mrs. Garland or Mrs. Nor
riss trustee ever made any demand upon
Burr Garland IN his lifetime for the pay
ment OF the claims that have been as
serted against his estate in the suit in
which the decree of February. 1850, APP
pealed from, was entered. These claims
were never asserted In court until 1885.
BARRED BY LIMITATION.
The court, in its opinion, in brief. says
that the plaintiff. who instituted this
suit. for the settlement OF Burr Gar
lands estate, il dead. Morris. his admin
istrator, Is dead: Mrs. Morris the chief
cestui que trust, is dead and the man
against whom the claims are asserted,
has been dead twenty-five years. The
Morris claim involves the settlement OF
accounts running through five years be-
tween Morris. trustee, and Burr Gar
land. both dead; and the other according
TO the contention of counsel, involves
transactions covering period Of nine
years, and there was never any ac-
count kept at the time Of the transactions,
and not a single book account, voucher,
or other paper now produced to substan-
tiate either claims. The decree rejecting
these claims. as barred both by the statute
Of limitation and laches, is plainly right
Judge Cardwell here disposes OF the as
signments OF error He says that the
last assignment Of error is the only one
well taken. This is TO that part Of the
decree of May IL. 1885. which directs the
receivers Of the court I'm whose hands
the assets Of Samuel Garland, Sr.'s, es-
tate were, to deliver all the money,
bonds, and other estate in their hands
10 the administrator Of the residuary
legatees. This, the Court Of Appeals
holds, was ERRONEOUS.
COULD NOT ALTER IT.
Among other things it was contended
by the appellees that the Circuit Court
should have decreed al the costs in this
suit to be paid by the Morris trust fund,
instead of the costs "other than those
adjudicated by the Court Of Appeals"
Judge cardwell. in his opinion. says
upon this point: This contention cannot
be upheld, as the Circuit Court had no
power to reverse or alter the decree OF
this court on the former appeal. and that
question cannot be brought back here on
this appeal for consideration"
In conclusion. the decision says: 1--WE
are Of opinion that the decree Of Feb
.uary IL. 1895. Is right In all respects and
should be affirmed, except in so far as
IL overruled the exception of the APP
pelees TO the report Of Commissioners
Sackett. allowing Morris. administrator
OF Burr Garland. the sum OF $50 for coun-
sci fees and expenses I'm taking deposit
lions in support of the claim OF Mrs.
Morrts and her children. In this respect
the Hecree is reversed and this error may
be corrected.
q nninfDu
II was error In the decree of May 49, 1926,
entered In the cause of Samuel Gar
lands tSr.) Administrator against Mary
L. Garland. etc, 10 direct the re-
oeivers OF the court TO deliver all the
money. bonds, and other estate I'm their
hands 10 the administrators of the residuary
iegatees; and in this respect this decree
Is reversed and annulled. and these cases
are remanded TO the Circuit Court OF
Lynchburg for such further proceedings
therein as may be necessary and pro-
per. and in accordance with this opin-
ion."
THE JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Judge James Keith handed down an
opinion In the case OF the Richmond Rail-
way and Electric Company vs. Mrs
Fillmore Bowles from the Circuit Court
Of Richmond. Mrs Bowles was injured
by jumping from a car, and sued In the
Circuit Court OF Richmond for $500. get.
ting a verdict for 1880.
The first error assigned was that the
suit was brought i'm the name OF Mrs
Bowies. by Aubrey r. Bowles. her next
friend. and II was contended that q
married woman, over the age OF q. can.
not sue In this state by her next friend
This the Court OF Appeals promptly
overruled.
Exca,fto,, e. 49, ,ata. A. ,....a.to.