The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-02-15
IMPORTANT OPINIONS.
Cases Of Jones ". Jones' Administrator.
jackson Va. Hopkins and Haw1ey
". Monteiro-Tbe Diges;s.

Aye vs.. Lovett. No. SO. Argued by
| Judge James f.. Heath for plaiRu0 IN
error and r. q. Tunstall, Esq. for de-
PENDANT m error. and continued until
Monday.
The case al bar Will occupy the whole
OF Mondays session The case ~ VIII
! iams VS.. Watkins will likely le heard
! tuesday, and after that Il Is probable tnJi
1 no more arguments Will be heard curing
! this term.
Minton W. Talbot. Esq. Of Norfolk.
/ qualiied TO practice m this court
/ JONES vs. JONES ADMINISTRATOR.
The opinion handed down by the SUI
/ preme Court Thursday in the cas.- of
/ Jones rs. Jones administrator. jackson.
/ NC VS. hopkins, ana liasley SIS. Mon
/ zero are very important ones. and the fOl-
/ lowing digest viii be- read with interest.
Jones VS. Jones administrator. From
! nv 1fcm1 fourt of Fredericksburg. opln-
I ION by Buchanan. judge.
iuc main question fin this case ie Wheth-
/ or slave named Bob was emancipalcd
| Toy uis masters viii. Yr" tfstasof. in his
! iifst cOdlrh, says. "l intended 10 give my
| negro man Bob his freedom. but DOB writ
| ing The foregoing will % escaped me-
| lie then provides. "Ifc N}Obl may o n
| 10 go 10 Liberia or t0 i)c state of Ohiu.
! an 10 Dc removed At the charge of my
estate. wish my brother to
make suitable provision f0r him. lf
te should not hc wiHm- so acrrpf his
| freedom wish my brother or nay cNccu-
tors ID dispose of him at my death in
Sien way as 10 secure 10 hIm 20 good
ana humane MASTER and To- hc paid am
nually part OF his earnings tic shall
nave th" privilege Of accepting bis freo-
dom AT any period OF his life. Duf 90 rc-
MAN with my brother and % laLor as
slave as long rs ne STAYS ln me state"
In the third cOdicil De- states that Bob
mas become disabled. gives him an au-
nuiy Of 80 during his ifo. and provides
/ now it shail Doe paid. auH adds. q have
gwen MN his freedom. and whether he
accepts if or not give him this annuity
iu addition TO the provisions Of my will,
To- DO paid 10 him whether free Or not'
1n constituting mis- win $50 have as
Ihdt NOT only tine language of the tesfa-
tor hut also his declarations of what Doc
my hlta To do when poo wrote thcm and ot
what hc had done afieF fney had neen
written.
Tho object Of construction being to 49,
certain the intention of his declarations.
Wnel contained Boo the viii. Of what H.
inter ded ORB do or bad done bF the laL-
guage used. ought 10 control and De- COM
elusive. unless Or Dee manifest that mo- such
consiruction can Doc placed upon &c.
toWrNri or hy whatever words rho in-
t.uuon is expressed that intention must
prevail. for there IS no prescribed form in
pate % slave Us reluited 90 Doe expressed.
a leieu. -.2. -hl Minor. 1861
ihe contention is made that tho viii
gave hop thc election 40 hc free or 10
remain slave and not being able as
slave mndcr me decisions of Barley ~.
PoinGcNfcr and Williamson VS. Coalter 70
6iatlaIp To- make such election. the will
was imperative. and De continued 10 boz ID
slave.
We do not think this case presents the
questions decided boz those. huf if it lid
they would not preclude us from a. nom
examination of that question. because
they are i'm conflict with prior decisions
va fIr
were decided hy bare majority. two
Judges dissenting bon each case. and arc
so contrary So reason ami justice that we
would hesitate long before we would
hold That slave could not elect 10 Doe
nee when ihat right WAS given him by
his owner
The tesfator hsd the power to manu-
mlI nus slave. Or To- continue him ion
slavery. bat Doe could not make Dr6vis-
ions Tor his occupy in- am Intermediate
pVSiHon between freedom ana slavery.
Ihe law recognized no such condition.
ana the courts have uniformly declared
sufh provisions NoId n the viii made
him free. conditions umiGug that freedom
were void. lf Doe did NOT make him free.
hnt gave him rights which "a slave could
not exercise, they We're also void
We are OF opinion that the tcstator ia
me case a. bar intended 20 and did
emansip1te his slave Bob. and that re
slistqtfni provisions Of his will ny
which Doe sought 10 create for him "A con-
ditiou Intermediates between freedom and |
slavery. m he refused 10 accept freedom
were VOID, and in DID wise affected. .ne |
leduest of freedom.
The statute OF limitations cannot ho re- |
lied upon 10 defeat the legacy bcguaatfaI |
10y ihe Will The personal REPRESENTATIVE !
OF q deceIent Is dccreod I'd trustee exorcfs- |
ing continuing trust as 90 the legatees |
and NifIfibufees off his dercdcnf's estate |
In such cases the statute has mo- anpllca- |
ton. % Va. 1q2 NZJ
Such judiciary can rely upon sialenee4 /
OF demand. pre-, rniptiou OF paymsn. of |
sautlacuon arising from lapse of fItna /
IN Ibis case there is nothing Do nrerent
lhe l,eaiec from asserting his claim III /
wa. kept ON slavery until 1855 dcur,--al
,s}h oi BPS freedom and the hequcsf |
D hf stay law was in existence until Ian
lidrN j. 1859. ana his petition was di.I d..
~ ID tne suit instituted in part ion tfs
p llllns up the estate of which tbfs am
hullf was part
JAG hson, etc, VS.. Hopkins From tho
circuit Court OF Princes Anne. Reversed
oPlniuh bN buchanan judge.
by am actlon ol detinue houI WAS given |
l ui,,i,r seclon Erl of the Code. the
oniisois undertaking 10 pay am COSTS
awarded against ihe plaintiff I'm the ae-
tloh' nut emitting the undertaking 80 nav |
aI damages THAT may accrue 10 the de-
,"i"'L or amy other person. hy reason
vI ti' SEIZURE OF the property under the |
statutory proceeding. The first under
lahlt lS llifNded sOlc. FOR the benefit /
obi Hei .ndhnt hr securing Taymcnt of
l.I IIthi ana any other person injured
The plainiin FOB this case was not the
defendant Doe the action Of drffuuo and |
Qua only rely upon the second under
taking required hy tho statute. which was
Wmohy omitted from The bond sued on
nt demurrer 10 the declaration ought
10 nave been sustained in The court be- I
low, the breach of the bond being The
gist of the action. without which breach /
there Is no cause of ton.
, NC second uni -r,a kina prescribed by !
.he statute. having been omitted Zoo The
BOND, mere could De- nO preach OF that
It's omission. however does not render
'hc nOhd void and 10 would not he in
'onsohance with TIE rules of common law
lr me dictates OF common eeu~e "a hold |
10 Noid. Where tire court or officer has |
'n,ln9il'y 10 take j.. AND ranes q mis-
d or By asserting condition not
inthonzed the board 81 not vitiated
MESS the statute, by express words
ghoy s'eS Toi{ T f5S bSS 5 RSses no,
'itlatc the good, aad ,hs aond n.ay lie
sued on so FAR as ;lc conditions are !
GOD as a statutory bond. Is Graft. 10.
b ID, 32l.
The breach assigned On the declaration
l0t being within the condition or The !
.ond, IT was error to overrule the de-
judgment reversed. domurr r. susta-rco.
ud judgment for plaintiffs In error WIN
'ut prejudice TO the defendant lon error
o institute such other proceedings as
nay be advised
ilalsey vs.. Monteiro From the Circuit
curt Of HengicO. Reversed. Opinion by |
,iely, Judge.
Appellee filed his bin 10 Compel spe-
lie performance Of alleged contract Tor
ale OF land
Contract made BY real estate agents.
'hO sought 10 sustain 10 ds AGAINST ihfir
ana insisted on heir Authority
, blnd him. Appellant denied such au- ,
horlty and likewise the claim # appellee ,
pr speanc performance. The burden was
% the appellee To prove against appel
mt valid and binding contract.
Appellant bV apr4.rn.ut writing J