Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-09-25
MANY OPINIONS
BANDED DOWN IN SUPREME COURT
OF ArpEALs.
A Case of Life or Death-Writ of
Error Rcfused-An Insurance Suit
A Question of Lien-Argamcnts--
Proceedings of Court.

president From the Corporation Court
of the city OF Norfolk. Petition for writ
Of error refused.
This case was before the Court upon
petition OF Charles Williams for writ
Of error ia the judgment OF the Corpora
ton Court OF the city OF Norfolk. by
which ne was sentenced TO be hanged for
the murder Of George Bees.
Virginia Hot Springs Company VS.. Har-
yison. From the Circuit Court OF Bath
county Reversed. opinion by Judge
James Keith. president
This Is a suit praying for the specific
performance of contract set out In the
bill. which was claimed TO have been en-
tered into between Harrison. the plain
tiff. and the Hot Springs Company. ana
the correspondence which II Is alleged re-
suited In the contract Is fully set out IN
the rect d and opinion, but are too
lengthy 10 be here quoted.
The Court here was of opinion that the
negotiation was never consummated by
contract. neither party ever having OIL
fered terms to which the other gave IN
qualified consent No contract Is COM
yiete without the mutual assent of the
parties. and an offer to sell imposes no
obligation until IL is accepted according TO
its terms. A proposal 10 accept. or an
acceptance on terms varying from those
offered, is a rejection OF the offer and
puts an end TO the negotiation.
Fackler vs.. Berry and others. Opinion
by Judge James Keith president. From
the Circuit Court Of Augusta county. Re
versed.
The only question determined in this
case is upon the construction OF a clause
OF the deed from Michael Fackler 10 John
p. Watts. trustee, for the benefit OF Eliza
beth Fackler The clause in dispute Is as
follows ITO John b. Watts, trustee. TO
hold as the absolute property Of his wife
Elizabeth FaclSler by whom he derived
the premises that she mey have perfna-
nent home for her ,fe. and his children
by her a pittance after her death" The
Circuit Court was of opinion that under
this language Elizabeth Fackler took a
life estate, with remainder TO the children
This court is OF opinion that under the
deed Elizabeth Fackler took the 'absc-
lutte property a fee-simple in the estate
conveyed to the exclusion OF the chill
srer.
Long va. Pence's Committee. Opinion
by Judge John w. Rely. From the
Circuit Court OF Rockingham county.
amended and affirmed.
rendered on a motion by the assignee
% n promissory note against Remote
asslgnor. the assignee having been un-
able by the use Of due diligence 10 re-
cover the amount OF the note from the
makers on account OF their insolvency.
IL was contended that the law does not
authorize the proceeding by motion In a
case OF this kind.
He'd. l. That section 3.2li OF the Code
applies TO all contracts. express and i'm
piled, upon which a person Is entitled 20
recover money 10y action; and that the
ground Of the motion being the implied
contract OF the assignor 10 repay the
consideration he had received for the
note for which the right Of action is
given by section 2Sd of the Code. the
motion was within the terms OF the stat
ate authorizing the proceeding by mo-
ton.
2. That the waiver of the home
stead exemption expressed in the
note as 10 the obligation thereof did not
apply TO the Obligation Of the implied
contract between the assignor and as
ssnce growing out Of the assignment.
which was an entirely different obliga-
ton from that evidenced by the note:
and that the defendant assignor was en-
titled 10 claim his homestead exemption
against the judgment.
Kline VS.. Trplett ct ais. Opinion by
Judge John w. Rie,y From the Circuit
Court OF Rockingham county. Affirmed.
INSURANCE CASE.
Cochran VS.. the London Assurance Cor
poration. OpinieH by Judge r. Ii. Card
well. From the'Circuit Court Of Rock
ngham county. Reversed.
This was a suit by Cochran on policy
Of insurance issued by the London Assn
rance Corporation TO II. NJ. Bell and the
Srottoes Company, with loss, IL any
payable TO Cochran. az his interest might
appear. The policy contained the usual
-iause limiting the right TO sue for the
loss TO twelve mOnths f:Om the date Of
the loss. and about the expiration Of the
twelve months from the loss, Cochran,
having been unable 10 secure the sigma
lures Of the receivers OF the GrOttoes
Company TO The proofs OF loss owing 10
some controversy over the purchase Of the
property from Cochran, obtained from the
general manager of the insurance com
pany an extension OF ninety days within
which to bsing his suit. If the loss was not
sooner adjusted; ana before the eXpira-
tlon OF the ninety days brought this suit.
The insurance company made defence
that the suit was not brought within
twelve months from the date OF the
IRE; that the ninety days extension given
90 Cochran had not been accepted by him.
or IL accepted 10y him, 1t was given on
condition, which he had broken. Al the
trial the defendant company demufred
10 the evidence of the plaintiff, and the
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff ior
me amount of the loss. subject TO the de-
cislon OF the court on the demurrer 10
The evidence The court sustained the
demurrer 10 the evidence and gave judy
p,ent for the defendant company.
Held: That an adjuster OF an insu-
rance company without authority 10 grant
an extension OF the time within when
the assured by the terms OF his pohcy
might bring suit TO recover his loss, can
moi attach conditions 10 an extension
.lreadv granted by the company itstlI
and communicated 10 and accepted by the
assured. l., III.
THAT II a condition of facts Is such
that the Jury may adduce from tnem
more than one inference or conclusion
the court, upon motion TO set asice 'nsn
verdict, or upon demurrer 70 ,is W
,asnce has no such discretion. but Is pound
Soa, 10 that Interpretation OF the facts
Ind AZ constrained to adopt that eonelu-
80, from the evidence which the JURY
have sanctioned by the veruieI
That the evidence In this case ala
-, t,s,,fv the trial court IN sustaining
,he demurrer 20 the evidence on tne
eround that the ninety Gays eAtehs,oi y
syanted 10 Cochran had not been dS0ep'eu
and relied on by him.
QUESTION OF LIEN.
Patterson vs.. the Gyoitoes Company
Coiaion by Judge John A. Brcnauan'
From the Circuit Court OF Augusta eoun-
~. Reversed. ,o,.,o,,
The question In this case for decision
MAS whether the lien expressly reserved
An The deed TO secure the payment OF the
deferred purchase-money bonds exienoea
40 the whole tract OF land. or whether IN