The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-03


of evidence and the death Of the parties
as TO render it difficult to do justice, tne
court will not relieve the plalntlis IL,
under the circumstances OF the case, II
is too late 10 ascertain thc meri,s sN VIZ
controversy. the court viii not Interfere
whatever may have been the original JUS
tice OF the claim"
Accordingly II was held that. although
the time which had elapsed might not OF
itself constitute a statutory bar. the net-
iect of the parties for fourteen years 10
prosecute their suit, when considered with
other circumstances In the case, Jusilhe1
the dismissal Of the pla,ntln bil. 80
Va, go. ard cases cited: Graft, H.
III: IL Graft, 90: 20 Graft, 49, 1JG; ~
Va, 3s3. All.
The plaintiff who instituted this suit
for the settlement or Burr u. estate -
dead: his administrator. against whom IL
was brought and who attempted TO set up
q counter claim against the estate he was
administering. IS dead: the chief cestui
qui trust is dead: the claims arose. as to
the first years transactions, thirty years
ago. and the man against whom they are
asserted has been dead for twenty-five
years The Morriss claim Involves settle
ment OF account running through hNc
years between MoTriss, trustee, ana Burr
| O. both dead: and the other claim in
| wolves transactions covering period OF
| nine years. commencing about lS62. There
was no account kept III the time OF the
transactions. and not single book, ac-
! count, voucher, or other paper was pro
duced to substantiate either claim. the
| decree refuting these claims, az barred
| both by the statute and laches, Is plainly
/ right.
: While there are no debts outstand-
ing against testator's estate. the assets
| Of the estate should not be decrced 10 the
rcsiduary legatees until the rights OF the
widow az any in those assets are deter
! mined. l..
J tcrest. yet when they have been paid by a
surety under decree OF court, the pay
ment establishes debt due the surety.
carrying interest as any other debt.
SUMMARY.
James Keith. President; Boschen's ex-
| ecutrix vs.. Jurgens executor Chdh
Richmond Railway and Electric Com
pany vs.. Bowies. Circuit Court city OF
| richmond. Judgment reversed.
Judge John W. Kieiy: 40 Morq pcci In IN
| Corporation Court city Of Danyille. Al
Judge r. II. Cardweil: Garland's adj
| ninistrator a. ais. VS.. Garland's admins
| traitor sc. Circuit Court city OF Lynch
| burg. Decree reversed.
| Judge John \. buchanan: Pierce vs..
! Grce. Hastings Court city OF Ports
/ mouth. Judgment affirmed.
Judge George VI. Harrison: Chesapeake
! and ohio Railway Company VS.. Lash's
| administrator. Circuit Court city OF
| Lynchburg. Affirmed.
| Commercial Bank VS. Rucker. Cs-cr.t
| Court city OF Lynchburg. Dismissed as
| imprOviI IDENTIFY awarded.
| Carter vs.. Commonwealth. County
| Court of Scott county. Writ Of error re-
| fused.
| Spoor vs.. Pendleton. &c. Circuit Court
| Of Smyth county. Appeal refused.
| Hunts Administrative vs.. Norfolk and
! Western Railroad Company. Circuit
| Court city OF Lynchburg. Writ Of error
| refused.
Harrison. &C.. vs.. West Lynchburg
| Furniture Company CT ais. Upon petition
! Of Woodson-JohnsOn Furniture Company
/ 10 rehear an order refusing Us petition for
| an appeal. Petition refused.
! Norfolk and Western Railroad Com
| pany VS.. Ampey. Further argued by
! Judge w. III. Mann, and submitted
! Collins and others Us. Christian, Judge.
| On the motion docket. Submitted
! Danvile Street-Car Company VS.. Payne,
! No. o. Argued 10y l.. G. Berkeley, ESQ
and James Harrison, Esq. for appel
| lants and A. j. Montague. Esq. for APP
] pellees. and submitted.
| Sherwood and others VS.. Atlantic and
| Danville Railroad Company. Petition re-
! mandamus filed.
The case TO be called Monday is No.
| 90. Chesapeake and Onto Railroad Com
! pany vs.. Moshy, and the - ket in order.
| except that Houghton VS.. AlOuntain-Lake
| Land Company. "A case on the privileged
| docket is set for Tuesday, April eth.