The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-27


road Company From tho Circuit No"'
Of Powhatan. Affirmed. opinion 'S
Keith. President. ,. ,.a land
Thc railroad company IN lSNS haa lanu
condemned In the usual and fets.al 49,
her for fits right Of way an"
on tho payment OF the assessor ""''' ',, ?
into court. an order was cntereu Nesu"s
tse foe-simple title 20 the land condemn
ed Sra said company. , ..,,o
This order was Afterwards set ASIDE,
iut a now commission was appointed anu
the proceedings. so far as the record
shows 60 tho contrary, are sun pchulhs
and undetermined. ...-,
Aff.r she proceedings were instituted
A. the County Court huoo became the
purchaser Of the ano'
In 1902 Rudd brought ciectment, al
frcinc that the company had, In 1890. on
tered upon the land and unlawfuily with.
held The possession.
Hn4. In order 10 maintain cjcctment
Tho plaintiff must show legal title In HIM
self and a present right Of possession un-
dor 90 nt the commencement OF the ac-
ton. Sutue VS.. r. r. CO., 56 Va Jen-
nings US. Gravclcy, decided at Novem-
her term. $3.50.
Concedinr. FOR tho sake OF the argu.
meut that the legal title az date OF judg-
mont was still in plaintiff In error The
proceedings Of condemnation gave de-
PENDANT in error "a lawful right 10 enter
upon The premises. and arc fatal 20 that
necessary element I'm the case-thc present
right Of possession in the piaintin. Va.
Code. Sec i0Si. is conclusive on that point,
snd gives 10 the company in whose favor
n report has been made by duly appointed
commi ssioncrs. and which has paid the
sum ascertaiued 10 be due. tho right 10
enter upon and construct their work upon
the land embraced I'm such report. not
withstanding the tendency OF the proceed.
iugs.
Without expressing any opinion upon
tho question Of title. the right Of posses
sion being In the defendant Ia error the
Judgment is affirmed.
JURISDICTION OVER FERRIES.
Sergeant US. Irving. From the Circuit
Court Of buckingham. Affirmed. Opin-
ION by RELY. Judge.
This case involves the jurisdiction Of
the County Court 10 discontinue a ferry
Section 1850 ~ tho Code c0nfcrs up0n the
court Of the county from which any fer
ry is established" tho right TO discontinue
The franchise under certain conditions.
This particular ferry was established
more than a hundred years ago. but the
original act has not been produced. The
earliest description Of the ferry before the
court IS the Act Of 1892
From this 80 appears that tho ferry was
established both from Albemarle across
tho river 10 buckingham. and from Buck
ingham back across the river to Abe
marie. Therefore the court OF either
county has jurisdiction, under section
1880. 20 make an order disseminating
The ferry upon proof Of failure 10 com.
ply with the law. subject 10 the concur.
renee OF the court Of the other county.
The record contains none Of the evi-
ce1ee which induced the court TO enter the
order disseminating the ferry. and all
mis- court has before II are the facts re
cited Is that order and made part Of il.
me Facts so recited. ~ established
would he conclusive OF the propriety OF
iNe order u appearing that the court had
jurisdiction both of the subject matter
and the parties. and fits Judgment must
'' presumed TO be right tll the contrary
Doe shown
TECHNICAL WCTDS IN DEEDS.
Nys vs.. Levitt. From the Hastings
Court oi Norfolk city. Reversed. Opinion
10y Buchanan. Judge.
Construction OF a deed" Heirs of
her body"
Tine granting clause in the deed is TO
Jane G. Lovtt Tor and during her natural
me- ana 40 her do ath. then 10 the heirs Of
her body and their heirs forever"
Held. D. Unless there Doe i'm the deed
other expressions or PROVISIONS which
clearly show that the grantor I sed the
words 'neirs of beer body in some other
Than their ordinary aCceptation. ana as
descriptive of another class Of objects.
DO ls clear that the fee in the Land sub
Je-t 90 Mrs rs life estate. passed 20
The hclrs of her body ANA not C. her
children. for no rule is better settled than
that technical words are presumed 10 be
used technically, unless the contrary ap-
cars ou the face Of the instrument. and
that words of definite legal Specification
arc 10 he understood as used I'm their def
mite .eeal scrse d Graft. 34S: So Va.
80 2 Minors lnsts., 1866 9th cd:
Jarman on WINS. D. $50 10Th Amer. ed
10 is Insisted that there are expressions
Or The deed which show that these words
were not used in their ordinary accepta-
ton. hut that the grantor meant by them
t1e children OF Mrs J. The word chill
NI0u' does appear in the preliminary part
OF the decd, and the grantor. IN giving his
Oascns TO- making the conveyance de-
o'o-Hd. among other things, that ne de-
sired specially 10 provide Tor her and
her children
This Court IN a line Of decisions from
Wallace rs. Dold Leigh 20 STAGE. etc.
VS.. Bumrardner, SO Va. hac held that |
"a grant or gift 10 a woman and her !
it.ffnl or 10 "a trustee fer the benefit OF |
herself ard children passed 20 the mother !
and that tho mention OF the word "chil- /
.gen' in the deed or VII. merely indicated |
me motive Tor the conveyance or gift !
- without investing them with any interest |
fheFein.
g. Later cases have modified the old |
rule as 90 estoppei and IL IS now estab- /
+. he'd that although there IS no warranty. !
tine grantor. in the interest Of honesty and /
fair dealing. Will lie estopped from as /
.erting am after-acquired title against |
is vrudce where the deed Of convey |
snce recites or afirms that the grantor |
Is feisod OF "a particular estate which /
.hc deed purports 10 convey. and upon the !
faith OF which the sale was made. |
Leigh. 1858. 40s. u Howard. 297; q Howard. !
s2s. "a Graft. a., So Va. S2l. Minors |
inst. mo, Rowie on Covenants Of Title |
.fth ed. 3l5-456.
@. One tenant i'm common IN an action /
Of eicciment cannot in his own name (
or bind his co-tenants Each |
must sue for himself, and I'm his own
name. The plaintiff cen only recover such /
interest in the premises as he may prove |
himself entitled to-" Marshall vs.. Palmer, !
q Va. The plaintiffs here were only en-
iled 90 judgment for one undivided /
noety OF the land sued for. Judgment
n their favor for the whole parcel was
.lTor. and must be reversed.
As TO REVOCATION or WILLS.
Gordon VS. Whir0ck &c. From the
Cfancery Court Of Richmond city. Al
frmcd Opinion by Harrison. Judge.
W. lcft five testamentary papers-O A
VIII dated February "a ISIS duly eNccut-
cd. and llspOsing OF an estate worth !