Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-20
Supreme Court AihrmS Decree Contrary
10 Bette Thomas Lewis Decision,
OXFORD GREAT ROOM FOR FRAUD.
This View Taken of Claims of Gifts
Causn Mortis-Must Sue for Per-
canal Damages within One Year
from InJury-othcr Opinions.

,yh,ch Judge John A. Buchanan delivered
the opinion affirming the decree OF 'he
clrcuit Court OF Madison county.
This case IS somewhat anaiosous ~
the celebrated Bette Thomas LOWS cast
in which. after a long fight IN the courts
,he natural daughter Of william a;
THOMAS. a wealthy resident OF Henrico'
,ecovered the bulk Of his estate, Whlch
was valued at something over quarter
~ n million dollars The opinion HANDED
down Yesterday does not reverse mat
wandered in the Bette Thomas Lewis
ease bv the former court; yet the effect
of the two decisions, in view oil the CIT
cur,stances under which the causes came
mn 10 the tribunal OF last resort Is oi-
roctly contrary
FACTS IN THE CASE
loci Smith died. and his administrators
oualiaed. William \. Smith, the appel
liant. claimed that Joel had gwen MN
rausa mortis. personal property choses
In action. etc, which were under 'he
rontrol of the appellant. Therefore the
administrator fled against the appellant
a bill in equity, TO compel him to as
,over the property, chooses in action, etc
~ his intestate. The appellee dhe
p,aiptifo denied that any such gifts had
been made; alleged that appellant Was
In nossession OF the property, ana re-
f,,sed IA give him q description of II, thai
he might recover it at law; asked LOT
n receiver TO take charge OF II during
the litigation. that appellant might De
restrained from collecting debts que ING
decedent: and required 10 answer, ul-
fer oath, what property he hdu III ne
nossession. or under his control, with tull
particulars in regard TO IT.
The Hill was demurTed to; first, De
cause the complainant had an adequdle
remedy at law: and, second, because inc
ais,rihutees of the decedent were ne
cessarv parties. This court held. first
ibet the bill alleges a state OF iac's'
which show there was not an adequate
rrmedV at law 4 discovery OF me
amounts dates. and character OF the
ossets of the decedent was necessary
Second. the object Of the bill was not 10
distribute the estate OF Joel smith, put
fer the discovery OF certain facts 50
shat the complainant could get posses
ZION and control of that portion OF sdIl
estate which was in the possession Vi
and claimed by the appellant 80 thal
the QiStflDuletS u Jpti '''ii'NA'
necessary parties. The demurrer was
rroperly overruled on both grounds.
The court being in possession OF the
case. on the ground of discovery, had the
ri,gbt to retain and make an END OF II,
and proceeded to do so by deciding thal
.he evidence in support of any GIT
causa nortis was suspicious and insuin-
rient. They would have preferred that
an issue out of chancery should nave
toen directed: but. as neither parry
asked H. and the court belo" did
not deem 1t necessary they oushl no,
20 reverse the decree appealed from ana
direct such issue now. The opinion con-
cludes:
lin cases of this kind there is so much
Yoom for fraud and mistake that the eVi-
dence should be carefully scrutinized, Inc
proof clear and convincing, and the Juds-
ment of the court fully satisfied Inc
decree OF the Circuit Court ff MADISON
county should be affirmed"
WAS HIS OWN FAULT.
President Keith delivered the opinion
in Richmond and Danvlle Railroad Com
pany VS.. Tribble's Administrator, by
which the Circuit Court OF Cuipepei
county was reversed
Edward Tribble was killed by the di-
vision OF a train, and subsequent COLI
sion between the two parts on the APP
nelIant's line of railroad. His admins
traitor Thaddeus G.. Tribble, sued the
Richmond and Danville Railroad com
many for damages, and obtained verdict
subject TO a demurrer 10 the evidence
for $500. for which the Circuit Court en-
tered up Judgment The railroad com
pany appealed. . 800,
moi necessary for them TO consider the
evidence on which the verdict was based
as 10 the condition Of the coupling, the
min the caboose. and the whistle. etc
The uncOntradicted evidence showed INA
the train was fully equipped with sum
cient brakes, and that the person Wh'
was killed was guilty or gross hegH
gence in not ascertaining the severance
81 the train and making proper provision
for his safety: that he came to MS deati
by his own fault. or that OF DIS reno"
brakeman. or that of the engineman; ina
these. or one OF these. was the proXlmat'
sause and that the defects or ma
chInery averred and proved We're bu
the secondary. or remote, causes OF 'n'
disaster. The judgment of the lowe
court is reversed. and judgment entered
for the appellant.
FELL INTO A PIT OF HOT OIL
In the case Of Anderson VS.. Hygeia
Hotel Company the opinion was read oS
Judge John W. Rely.
In June. 1898. Anderson sued the Hote
company for damages. because he, in Jan
nary. 1882, fell into an open pit, on thell
nremises. filed with hot oil. The DEFEND
ant pleaded the statute Of limitations
and the plaintiff demurred. The cour'
oyerruled the demurrer, ana gave luds
ment for the defendent. the correctness
of which depends on the proper construe
ton Of section 1927 of the Code.
he M
or one wear. applies to this case, depend
cd the appellate court says. upon wha
actions terminate with the life OF the per
son.
The common-law rule was that acti'
personals mortur cum persona This
rule has been considerably altered b.
statutes. both IN England and Virginia
n has not been altered, however. In Vir
ginia, in respect Of an injury done 10 tn
person For such an injury the actor
must. under section 2927, be brought with
In one year from the time the right o
action aecrues. which is the time whei
the injury was sustained.
Sections 1902 and 1903 do not take th
case out OF the common-law rule; nor doe
section pos This point Is elaborated!
argued, and numerous cases cited. No
can the Act of 1884, page S. amending
section 290S. help the contention Of tn
appellants counsel, because IL wa
passed after the judgment in this cas-
was final.
The judgment OF the Circuit Court o
Elizabeth City county Is affirmed
CAN MAINTAIN HIS SUIT.
Judge Cardweil delivered the opinion fl
Jamess Executors vs.. Life This wa
an appeal from a decree OF the Circui
Court OF Pittsylvania, and the questio,
involved was whether "A judgment-lel
creditor can maintain his suit in a cour
OF equity TO subject the real estate OF hi
deceased debtor until he has revived hi
I fndfmenf al law against the persona