The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-05
SUPREME COURT CASES.
yURTHER DIGESIS or OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN THURSDAf.
The Question of Trustees, Agents, &c,
Liability for Acts of >ervice-Many
Boom Questions.

Following are digcsts Of further opin-
ions handed down by the Supreme Court
Thursday, the report OF yesterday being
concluded to-day:
Ferguson & Fries vs.. Gooch, trustee.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Buchanan.
Held. /: 4 real estate agent as such.
has no right TO select a trustee for mem
bCls Ol ID syndicate other than himself,
nor has "a tenant an common or cO-Owner
with others, such right. nor 10 authorize
a trustee so selected 10 act for them.
Halsey vs.. Monteiro. "a 5. T.. Rep. IS.
The acts of trustee SO appointed Is
binding only Oh the party or parties max
ms the appointment.
- nor may IL man be the agent OF
both seller and buyer in the same trans
action without the intelligent consent OF
Lotn. Tie law will not allow an agent
To act for himself and his principal, nor
for two principals on opposite sides IN
the same transaction. All such trans
actions are vOidabie. and may be re-
pudiated by the principal, without show
Ing injury the amount OF consideration
absence OF undue advantage and other
like features being wholly immaterial.
Nothing but the principles conhrmst-
ton after full knowledge Of the facts
ual injury is not the principle upon
which the law holds such transactions
voidable. Tho agent must he elevated
Ito position where ne can not be tempt
cd 90 bctray his principal Parhn vs..
Woodruff. % y. j., Eq. ia, lso' Buckles
vs. Lanorty. ?. Rob. 207. Hawery vs..
Helms. 20 Graft. !. and many other cita-
tlons
No such custom or usage. il proven TO
exist could avail unless the buyers as
we'll as the sellers had knowledge or the
usage or custom, If then. Robinson vs..
Mollett. Eng and Irish Appeals So2,
So M SS: fernsworth Va. Hemmer, %,
Amer. decisions ,J5, Raison vs.. 1.aiN' ~
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF SER
WANTS.
Emmorson VS.. Fay. Reversed. Oplmoh
ly Judge Harrison.
FAY Walking along the street, was
Injured by an iron ball falling nom the
roof Of 90 lumicr kiln being erected on
Dot adjoining the street Inc question
Is whether EWmerson. the owner Oh tN'
proprrtv. of H.. the contractor for put
tlns 10 mp. rs liable.
Held. Emmers0n. the owner. was not
liable for the injury If the person em-
llovei hv him to build the kiln was SCI
i.cfel with due care and eNerci ed
an independent cmployncnt
ft is essential ia order 10 establish %
liability against a party for the nesl-
eance of others that the relation OF
master and servant shall exist
What constitutes am independent em-
poymeut is a question for tie court
not for the jury See Hihbs adm =.
vs.. Norfolk and Western Railway Com
many. So Va. -ll where the main SUBJ
i.tt is discussed al large.
MANY BOOM QUESTIONS
Martin. Sc. SIS. South Salem Land
+ COMPANY Affirmed opinion By Judge
Buchanan.
Hen. Tho act Of December 10. 1896.
entitled. "An act 20 prescribe the mode
I ly which unpaid subscriptions To JONI
stock companies may Doe recovered 10y
.lv said companies their receivers or
a-sience-"-and providing that all suits,
e.r. shall De az common iaw Odd the
country etc.. where the defendant zee
sides. with right 10 trial hy Jury II the
amount in controversy exceed 81" does
Dot apply ~ suits hy creditors of such
Joint stock companies 10 recover un-
paid subscriptions. the title OF the act
/ determining this conclusion.
D. Notice hv order OF publication OF
/ time and place Of taking an account, in
lime OF personal service. without giving
names OF parties DOB publication. is SUE
r....t rot-.a fo am rartias 10 the suit
..,.- ,.,,if,,,tio, is ordered bv de-
~ .t,,I. mon n very different
footing from such an order made for
tle purpose OF giving notice TO the par
+ tics trat they have hccn sued
..i,..,,,,,,, o,,o,,pt of stock
/ b'N "i ''' "'''.-'''.''-' ,..ttoir
/ require" 'i" '- o.','7 o., IT,. ,.~.
'ir "'. commune ~ ,,,,,.., l.,~,-r b,.
cir.,i, court nur-
been granted 10y ~" Fl
tuNli I'D section .l''' 't ''. 49, -,,,,-
loo-ed Mlin lne 9'.'''"is ~, to-'t
n.on"eiitA' ih' cor '.' '''., 90 ~ i-
'N- ''''' ....it A., ,,.rr,itfed fo
nor DIS rtD'h.'''"'' ,.i,b ifs
/ CNDrl'n ll I'
creditors
The guaranty OF a corporation tlal
.r,0scrlaors t0 los stock would not he
c.Isl upon t0 pay more tian thiy p'i
cent of their subscriptions may
GOOD as between Che company anu
stockholders. but as between t"' 'o
raf.. aud JOS creditors Dr. o. uol "''"''.7
.,rI.-- Tire latter had notice OBJ '"' 1""'
antv. when their debts were con''"' ',"'
D Minors Inst. ls5, MofaniI o" o'fr
...f SD stockholders VINO pun
Ur..t from the company az it'' '"''
,..r yrui. iu case of insolvency "' ""
p, u. creditors for tDe UiirIe'.o
tween tic price paid AND par F"'~0'
,r.,f,n.,u CORD, sect. la9'.
r.rs8u VINO hes been induce" ~
s.ts.tI6. Tor stock iu corportl'on Ns
/ f., and fraudulent represenl a'.'"s
o., material fact upon which De hau l"e
/ ri.ht to rely and oio lei3 mag s,,,.,
+ me contract resciudel as 3D. l".
E...HH H.