The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-04
SUPREME COURT CASES.
NEWPORT MINIS ELECrfON CASE
DGCIDED ACfIAST moss.
The Case Of Morganstern ". common
wealth Affirmed Lien Tor Taxes IN
Eichmond-Ofhcr Cases.


Corh.u u.s. PASTOR. receiver Aiitncd-
Op.nion Us Judge hc.th Wrcs.denO.
49,. OIL. .,.... t,..,,..cfion h.inf- fnifv
'''N' .,..... ....,.... and .f,
explained b" "'''
tho allegations OF quo "''' ''"3
roritod the decree Of Che lower court
t,...l...r., Cha Injunction should be az
'' ''', .,... ,.,,.,, ,,,,-,s f>, rfcff,foND
'....,,. ~. ,,,, ~, t,l.,,ro,,
i""'"'
Affirmed Opinion by Judge Neilh prcsI-
acaD
lu A pending fuit Tor Tho sale or Tcal
estate ln Richmond. The city filed a pete
fIou claiming ID lien for tl.Ds for lsi5-ls,l.
and il,,l.1. and on reference. commits
sl0.cr reported ass due Che city for are
retrs mAcs of about $1,000. and that tho
eams constituted lion on thc zeal estate.
Hold. Tho limitation in section $50 ot
tho code is not operative 300 fchmoni
ly reason OF an amendment 10 section
Ga passed January ls. ls,>-'nothng cone
tanned u this chapter in conflict with any
provision of fhe charter OBJ auy city shall
he construed fo r...raI eg.l provision
Yhe city charter. prior fo tine enactment
Of section $50 provided for the lcVyiug
and ,rfor..r,.ff OF taxes. and had
ien upon real estate FOR thc same. the
enforcement or which was rot subject
r... .f.. data.
rr...rIl,0.l for OBJ. Codes going into chcct.
mover became laN as 30 originally ape
prar.d lu the Code. anl thc 'I0ri oi l"e
amendment was to have tbc rights OF
. -,. ...l,....l d.. e..f.n r.s or
.,.,. .f onfnion
as fo liens for taxes. &c.,. except as 20
Richmond city only
t-ytr,r-,-,I- PLEADING &C
w., ,........... c,,i comranv
Filtii't ava I.....',, ~.
vs. fleio- "'. N.'iI.'''
duu-' h'ill l'' ... AVID
This was 900 a'u'h "I 'j'.'in'"'' anu
came up ON various 'A. ..o..i,
i'ie. IN'I' '..' ,.i,.. o.f.nI-
inc court N''", .,r,.- ~, f.fr.,rd
anus va 'r. f.,.5.nfs ,yonld DE
am "-.t' o., .,,f.e- iudrrneut.
.r, ,,.tf.,, B., fhis record 10 sug-
t....'.r ,,otfvo and the de-
".s 70 ~ bo commended
i,.'.'.', ,.'.t't..5 for The confession.
t"'N.l '''" ID tt.t.- ,,.,r9 i, an
NO ''Io. ''. ,''~,,,'. ~ reinr Ger
o..''' D, .,-,+.i,cf therein ANA for
a.. .,.>.- ,,,,r,.,.. mo evidence was adj
It'll IN rrovo fitlo. and was proper If
a.ro,onanie5 hv proof of possession under
claim on color of title. Even had the
CONT erred i'm admitting &C.. the error
was cured bv the defendants. who SUBJ
eeonentIv themselves offered the same
recon- in evidence Rich VS. Rich 16
Wend pqre 6s6. EGmgton VS.. Mutual
Life Insurance Company. 90 n. y. page
le2
Nor was d error % admit am cytrancous
decd 10 supply a link in the chain OF title
bv means of recital therein. Carter
vs. Rohnct. 40.
Tho confirmation hy "a court OF a report
hy its commissioner is confirmation or
the matters reported therein; g.. rooo,oivod
Ian eo.rtrl mode off transferring title
- gronfor and treated ass deeds Of bar
rain and saie' vet it appears thereby
that fha crlut0r only intended TO convey
I'm i',i .s to owned I'M time of its
f,..., l.r1s embraced in the prior
...... ,.,.,.,...,.roo ora reserved from
.,..,,ti., ~ tr. oriif-olaim deed. and
tf. ,lf ro+ mass Thereby though tho
,,,s.r d..1 ro,aain unre.ordod. Dcvlin
~, Da.dr sorffnn c-f Warvol ON Ven
do~e eorfion page &c.,
~, .rr.~ fo ovrrrulo motion IN arrest
NJ f,rrr.rf because Court erred I'm re-
,,,iri,,- dof.nlanfs 10 file particulars OF
f.f.r.e .rI refused TO REQUIRE plaintiffs
fo fla PARTICULARS of ground OF recovery.
.rhe nronsr method TO raise the question
WIS hv "a Iiu Of exceptions when the mo-
ton was rn-ee1 upon for % nilI or par
ticular4 Too iate after verdict ana
Judgment
LIEN FOR SUPPLIES.
po.,c, pio,,rr Comronv VS.. Carman
t,,,,,t.,r -o,,n.r,- of ale. Affirmed. Opin-
f..l' f-..u, frr.silaflD