Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-11-20
MANY CASES DECIDED IN THE ST.
PaEmE COURT YESTERDAY.
rHR COUPON QUESTION UP AGAIN.
rriai Court. Must Pass Upon the
Gcnuineness OF Those rendered.
Power of Councils to Offer Re-
wards-ofher Matters.

was that delivered by Judge klein IN
the case Of Wilcox VS.. Hunter, Treasurer.
]. w. Wilcox Is an attorney OF Norfolk,
and he rendered TO w. W. Turner, Urea
surer Of Norfolk, $25 81 Unreasonable
coupons. cut from the bonds OF the State.
which Hunter refused TO receive. Wilcox
applied for mandamus to compel Hun
ter to accept the coupons. and Hunter
demurred The court takes the ground
that the petitioner can rely In a lower
court upon the commences of the cou-
pons. and that IL ne proves their genuine
ness the Treasurer will be forced 20 ac-
cept them. The petition is, therefore,
denied.
THE LAW AS TO DEGREES.
In the case Of Spilman. Adams & CO.
VS. Gnpin the decision of the Circuit
Court of Page county IS reversed. From
the bill filed In that court on september
%. 1880. II appears that the Valley Land
and Improvement Company soid 10 Spii-
man. Adams & Co two lots OF lana IN
Page county. for which notes were taken,
secured by deed of trust. The notes
were afterwards transferred TO A. u.
Gilpin. and the suit was instituted 10
enforce the lien for their payment Wheh
the case was heard upon the OH no
answer was fled. and the bill was taken
for confessed. and the decree was en-
tered requiring Spilman, Adams * Co.
10 pay the complainant
The opinion. which was prepared by
Judge Keith and dissented from py
Judges Harrison and Buchanan. is very
voluminous and treats exclusively Oh uhe
law as to DEGREES.
Judge Cardwell handed down the opin-
ion I'm the case of Strayer VS.
Longs Executors &c. The sole question
involved in this appeal was whether OF
not the appellant, Joseph Il. strayer' Is
entitled 10 n homestead exemption out
~ the fund under the control of the
circuit Court of Shenandoah in the
chancery cause of Michael Longs Exc
cutors. SC. VS.. Strayer. &C., as against
the judgment of Longs executors. me
decree was affirmed on the ground that
there was no error In 1t.
COUNCILS POWER TO OFFER RE
WARDS.
In the case of the city OF winchester
vc Redmond. the opinion was handed
down nv Judge Rely. This case was
before the court on a writ OF error 10
iu1gment of the Circuit Court OF frede-
rick. rendered against the city OF WIN
chester for the amount OF a reward OF
fered by its Common Council Tor the ap-
,,rohsns,on and conviction OF incendi
aries. and the judgment Of the lower
court was reversed. The question in
the case was. Did the Council have the
poyer under the law TO offer the reward
and bind the city for It's payment? Judge
RELY held that the Councils powers We're
limited by the law which created
It. and it could do no art not authorized
by this hw. It's charter did not give
n such power. and on these grounds the
decision Of the lower court granting the
judgment was not sustained.
HANNAH WINS THE CASE.
Judee Cardwell delivered the opinion
of the court in Hannah. administrator,
VS.. Mary w. Woodson. which was suit
instituted In the Circuit Court Of Roa-
noke county by the appellee, Mary Wood
son. against the appellants, the heirs OF
William NJ. Utz, for the specific per
forrnance of a paroi contract, alleged
TO have been made and entered into be-
tween Utz and the appellee In the year
1867.
Mary was a slave, owned by utz, ana
lived with him after her emancipation. as
a servant. Utz built a house for her.
and on the Cay before his death conveyed
the property TO her. Subsequently she
Instituted suit for COCO. and the value
of TWENTY-FIVE acres Of land which. she
alleged. was due her under a contract
made in 1861 with Utz. in consideration
of her remaining with him after her
emancipation. 1t being further alleged
that she was Utz's natural child. The
Circuit Court held that the contract mad
been proved. and awarded the money
claimed to the woman. The opinion OF
the lower court was reversed, on the
ground that the evidence then adduced
was insufficient 10 prove the contract
alleged TO have existed.
THE LOWER COURT SUSTAINED.
In the case OF Reeves Gait trustee,
VS.. William Knabe Manufacturing Com
pany Judge Keith handed down the
opinien The case grew out OF suit
brought by the Knabe company on be-
half OF themselves and other creditors
OF Wesleyan Female Institution. claim
tng that a deed made TO Gait was with
a view of hindering and defrauding them.
The Hastings Court Of Staunton de-
clared the deed null. and that decision is
sustained.
Judge RELY d'ssented. and submitted
an opinion. on the ground that the dec
did not admit OF the construction that
II ENDANGERED the security of the cred
itors.
AN EXCHANGE OF STOCK.
Judge Harrison handed down the opinion
in the case of NJ. Kaufman VS.. Char
lottesyile Woollen NILS. The controversy
grew out of an exchange of stock reserv-
ing dividends. In January last William
Hotopp sold TO NJ. kaufman thirty shares
of stock OF Monticello Wine Company,
for forty shares OF Charlottesville Woollen
Mills Company, it being understood that
HOtopp was TO receive whatever dividend
was declared on the stock of the Woollen
Mills Company for January, 1896. On the
18th OF that month the Wooilen Mills
Company declared cash dividend of II
per cent and increased its capital stock
to such an extent as to add q per cent.
TO Hotopp's stock. This addition Kauf-
man declined to let him have. The lower
court ordered II 10 be placed TO Hotopp
credit, and Judge Harrison affirmed that
opinion, on the ground that the stock
dividend OF n per cent. represented part
Of the corporate property sold Hotopp. In
which Kaufman reserved no interest
A NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
Judge Rely delivered the opinion in the
case OF the Columbia Accident Associa-
ton vs.. Hockey. This case originated In
the Hastings Court OF stanton. and re-
suited In mistrlai. n writ OF error being
subsequently awarded and plea OF non
b&sumpsit being filed without objection.
II was a suit for salary alleged TO have
been guaranteed Rocky by the associa-
ton TO manage its affairs. and the asso-
citation claimed that he had improperly
performed this duty, and hence had not
earned the salary. The lower court de-
cided for Rockey. but this decision Ks set
aside and new trial ordered. The
opinion Is based on section S239 OF the
Code. and on the ground that In justice
70 the association II should not be made
TO pay for What II did not receive.