The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-09-25

2. That the waiver OF the homestead
exemption expressed In the note as the
obligation thereof did not apply 10 the
obligation OF the implied contract between
the assignor and assignee growing out OF
the assignment which was an entirely
different obligation from that evidenced
by the note; and that the defendant as
signor was entitled to claim his home
stead exemption against the judgment.
Kline vs. Triplett ct ais From Circuit
Court OF Rockingham. Affirmed. Opinion
by Judge Riley
FIRE INSURANCE. POLICY.
Cochran v. the London Assurance Cor
poration. From the Circuit Court Of Rock
ingham county. Reversed. Opinion by
Judge Cardwell
This was n svit by Cochran on policy
OF Insurance. Issued by the London As
surance Corporation 10 III. VI. Bsll and
tho Grottocs Company, with loss. II any.
payable 10 Cochran as his inters e. might
appear. The policy contained the usual
clause limiting the right TO sue for the
loss TO twelve months from The date
Of the loss. About the expiration or the
twelve months from the less. Cochran.
having been unable to secure the sigma
ture OF the receivers OF the Grottoes
Company 10 the proofs OF less owing 10
some controversy ever the purchase OF
the property from Cochran. obtained from
the general manager OF the Insurance
company an extension OF ninety DAYS
within which to bring his suit II tho
loss was not sooner adjusted: and before
the expiration Of the ninety days brought
this suit. Tie insurance company mace
defence that the suit was not brought
within twelve months from the date or
the fire: that the ninety days extension
given 10 Cochran had not been accepted
by him. or. n accepted by him. II was
given on conditions which he had brok-
en-. At ths trial the defendant company
demurred 10 The evidence OF the pialh-
TN and the jury found vfrd-ct Tor the
plaintiff for the amount OF the loss. sub
sect 70 the decision Of the court on the
demurrer TO the evidence. The court sus-
tanned the demurrer and gave judgme nj
for the defendant company.
Held. That an adiuster Of an insur-
ance company without authority TO grant
an extension Of the time within which
the assured by tho terms Of his policy
might br.ug n suit 10 recover lbs loss
cannot attach conditions 10 an extern
sion already granted by the company IT.
self and communicated 10 and accepted by
the assured.
. That II a condition Of facts IS such
nat the Jury may adduce from them
more than one inference or CONCLUSION
,he conrt rron a motion 70 set asine
tboir verdict. or upon a demurrer ~
,l,o ,,.iderco is hound down 10 that an
tsruretation Of the facts and Is constralh
"a ~ adopt that CONCLUSION from me
crilence which the jury have sanction
cd 10y their wrdict H.,
. that the evidence in this "a9e ain
NOT iustifv the trial court IN sustaliI,l H
10 demurrer 10 the evidence on me
',ro,,rd that the ninety days extension
~-rsnte1 IN cochran had not been ac'ep'-
ca anil relief on ~ him.
LIENS RESERVED
p,,.ore,n VS.. The Crottoes COMPANY
o+,nion NV Judge buchanan. From ene
circuit Court Of Augusta county ~
versed. D., at. ooeo
,rb. question for decision In TINS case
Nos whether the lien expressly reserved
IN the deed to secure the payment vi
tr.. deferred purchase-money bonds eN-
tended TO tho whole tract OF ln"u' on
whether i'm a. controversy win INC
,r-,ntee or those who claim under MIN.
coeb orantor IS confined 10 his own IN
terest conveyed ae eo.uritN TOY 'l' Pi.
me purchase-money bonds made
payable to him.
Held. The question ~ the lien reserved
rnor the face of tho deed conveying land
does not depend. as in the case or the
vendors implied or equitable Hen lot
nrrrhaee money. upon the extent of the
vendors Interest in The land conveyed,
hnt uDon the contract OF the parties IN
rasorvlng The lien. and. since 10 depends
uron the contract ~ the parties. the
question whether the interests conveyed
are Joint or several divided or undivided
is a matter Of no consequence. Oltlns
Patton VS.. Hogc. % Graft. 43.
WILL or SEPARATE ESTATE.
Kiracofe vs.. Kiracofe. &c. From the
Circuit Court Of Augusta. REVERSED
Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Held. where n married woman has
an equitable s,parafa estate, and the in
strument creating the estate does Io'
restrain her power Of alienation. she has,
MS incident TO the estate. a compete power
OF alienation 10y viii. II is not n1ccs-
sarv that the instrument creating tn
estate should contain an express power
in her TO alien. She has that power, un-
less it is restrained or withheld from
power 20 allen and fails 10 exercise H..
her husband win be entitled to courtesy,
but where she disg0ees Of f. by will. as
she has the right 10 do unless restrain-d.
the husbands right 90 courtesy is lost.
NEW CASES.
BOOten VS. Bo0tcn's executor. Appeal
and supersodeas TO the Circuit Cour- OF
Madison county.
Dabney vs.. Moore. Circuit Court OF
King William county Appeal granted.
Bond 900.
Gish VS.. Jamison Hastings Court City
Of Roanoke Appeal and supcrsedoas.
MOrganstern VS. Commonwealth. Hust-
ings Court. City Of Richmond. Writ OF
error awarded.
Cox VS.. Commonwealth. County Cour.
OF GraysOn. Writ Of error refused.
Williams VS.. Commonwealth. CorDori-
ton Court Of Norfolk Writ Of error re-
fused.
EKSON4L I'D GINLRIL.