Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-31

II Was Decided in the Supreme Court
Of Appeals Yesterday.
ABotrs HIrpING HORSE
The Liability of N Railroad Com
pauy Laid Down-Dumb Animals
Must Have Facilities for Rest and
Food--Tvo Land Suits.


Yesterday was opinion day In the SUI
preme Court Of Appeals of Virginia, and
four decisions were reI .cced. The most
important was that IL the case of the
Chesapeake and ohio Hai,w9v Company
against the American Exchange Bank
for 7. Il. Jamison 4 GO. This was writ
OF error to the judgment OF the Circuit
Court OF the city OF Lyncabur@, givioS
damages TO the plaintiffs for injury al
legged 20 have been done to two car
loads OF horses and mules while being
transported over he defendants hne
The complainant alleged bad handling
and inattention 10 the necessities of the
animals while en- route from Kentucky
20 Virginia, and that the horses did
not have space AMI opportunity for rest.
The opinion of the Cclrt OF Appeals.
which was prepared by Judge Buchanan.
gives much OF the testimony before the
lower tribunal aSG says that there II
evidence showing that the defendants
. train was delayed for some hours west
Of the Ohio river AMI that the company
for more than sixty hours. The court
holds in its decision that although the
contract by which a.. plaintiff undei-
took 10 load, feeo water. and unload
the stock at his own risk and expense
may have been valid ars birding con-
tract. IL was me duty OF the defendant
company TO provide suitable and safe
facilities for Ion ling and unloading the
stock and for watering ara feeding them
while being carried over lis line. The
court finds no error in the proceedings
OF the lower copri. and sfflms It's judg-
ment
An Interesting VIII Case.
The opinion in tho will case OF Gaskin
and others against Hutton was very
Interesting one. II was prepared by
Judge Buchanan. The decision depended
upon the proper construction of the pro-
visions of the Will OF William Hunton,
deceased, which stipulated that one piece
Of land should be equally divided be-
tween two OF his sons. and that certain
city property i'm New Baltimore should be
divided between two other sons. etc,
and that after these divisions, and a
certain spportionment 10 Mildred Jane
Hunton, daughter of the deceased the
residue of the property be equally divided
among the four sons and one daughter
yides. however that il either should die
before the division, or without an heir.
the estate OF such an one should be
equally divided among the living children.
The opinion states that two of tie
sons and the daughter died without ism
and that one of the other sons died leaV-
ing children The contention 90
the appellee was that the four sons aud
the daughter took "A fec simple estate
in the lands. and an absolute estate ~
the personally bequeathed. while the APP
pcliants contended that the whole estate
was taken subject 20 what may be
called the residuary clause OF the Will.
The words used by the testator I'm
that portion OF his VIII in which ;he
general or princips, distribution of his
estate was made wero appropriate words
for creating an absolute estate and
all that weTe necessary for that pur- 4
pose. BY the subsequent provision % /,
the will the testator directed what must /
be done with tho residue.
The court discusses this feature Of 3
the instrument as follows This pro-
vision OF the will does not say that II
either of the children should die be
fore the division or distribution proyid-
cd for in the will, then his share
should DO divided among the other chill
dren; but II says. after the above
made the residue OF the estate is 20 /
re divided equally between them within I
year after the tesiatoi's death; but /
4 either should die before the division, /
then his share should go 10 the sur I
VivIng children. The division referred |
10 must mean the division of the resi-
due OF his estate provided for in this
portion of his WILL and the limitations 1
contained in that provision only apply .
60. he ~ tote Cfcr.a nf
by it. This. We think, is the natural
and proper construction of the residuary
clause or portion of the Will. At least. il |
- not clear that the testator intend
81 by this latter provision OF his will
To diminish or limit the absolute estate
created by the former provision. and this
being SO, the result is the same a. if
II was clear that he did not intend TO
limit or diminish II.
I'VE are of the opinion. therefore, that
each OF the children of William Hunton,
deceased. took under his will a fee
simple estate in the lands devised them.
and all absolute estate in the personal
property bequeathed them, except in the
property devised and bequeathed them in
the resduary provision Of his within
which last property they took an estate
subject to be defeated by the death of
either before the division provided for
event of either dying without issue"
The construction placed upon the will
by the Circuit Court OF Fauquier was
therefore affirmed.
Two Cases Involving Land.
Judge Keith prepared and presented
the opinion in the case of Blackford
against Rogers, from the Circuit Court
OF Princess Anne county This was an
action of trespass. quare clausum fregit
involving 9s3 acres of land left by Dr.
Rogers 10 his two sons-George r. and
Ralph l.. Rogers. Upon the death of
the latter. George 7. Rogers instituted
a chancery suit for partition against
the heirs at law of his deceased bro,
Their. The land was sold I'm four par.
cels. and' litigation ensued. After dis
GUESSING the case fully the opinion states: |
"The evidence tends TO show possession |
In the defendant in error at the time :
of the alleged trespass, and negatives
the claim of possession, actual or con-
structve I'm the plaintiff in error We
are of the opinion therefore that the YER
Diet Of the jury and the judgment OF
the Court are without error and must
be affirmed"
The fourth. and last. opinion OF the
day was handed down by Judge Hsrri-
son. in the case OF Darling against Cum
ming. from the Circuit Court OF Eliza
beth City county. The property at issue
In this case was about l62 acres of
land near Newport News. with which
Daniel Cumming died seized James 8.
Darling claimed that Cumming had made
D sale OF the land TO him during Cum
ming's life. but the lower court held
that such was not the case. and its decree
was affirmed by the Court OF Appeals.
Other Business.
Lefew et ais. rs. Simpkins ct ais