Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-10-02
DAY OF OPINIONS.
voRx OF our HIGHEST COURT on
YESTERDAY.
A Ruenn Vista Boom Cnse--rntercst-
tup Question from AiIcghauy-A
knights of Psthi"s sWt--other
Decisions.
Decisions.

following opinions were handed down In
the supreme Court of Appeals to-day:
Diamond st.te Iron Company. etc. vs..
Alex. * Barig Company. etc. Opinion
by Judge H. ii. CardwelL From the Cir-
cult Court OF Rookbridge county. AZ
lrmcd.
on Tire 10Th OF August. 1890. Alexander
L. Rarle. doing business IN the city Of
Columbus. o.. under the style and firm
name. Alex. *. Rarig & Co., and the
Buona Vista Company. located at Buena
vista. Va. and other parties, entered
into an agreement whereby Alex. X. Iia-
rig & Co. were 10 remove their foundry
aud machine-shops. then located in the
city Of Columbus. TO the city Of Buena
Vista. that a joint stock company was
TO De Incorporated under the laws OF VIZ
einia to be known as the Alex. X. Rars
Comuauy. with a minimum capital OF
10000 and for the plant ana equipment
10 be furnished By Rarig q CO.. ana the
good will in the business. Karig q 60.
were TO have $4,000 of the capital STOCK
OF the new company. fun paid. ana non
assesFablc. and the other parties 10 me
contract subscribed 10 and were TO pay
Ss,00 not TO be issued till The directors
OF the company should so order II was
also stipulated and agreed that the parties
to the contract. other than Alex. * ka-
rir would purchase Of said Rarig S25Wv
OF the $4,000 Of the stock 20 be issued
10 him. a. aforesaid. as soou as the new
eomuany was organized. this stock 10 he
pad for by the parties In money The
foundry and maChine-works OF Rarlg
co. were removed from Columbus, a."
and located at Buena Vista. Va. upon
site donated boy the parties OF the second
uqrt TO the contract OF August 10. lS"'
the Alex. X. Rarig Company was char
tered by the Circuit Court or
Eockbridpo county. and the company be-
gan business Immediately upon securing
its charter. On September 5. 1890, al
meeting of the stockholders OF the Alef.
IS Rarig Company resolution was
adopted whereby the treasurer OF the
company was directed to pay out OF The
funds OF the company as they were re-
ceived from subscriptions 70 iis STOCK
$500 to- Alex. *. Rarig & co. fof me
stock that the parties of the second part
20 the contract Of August 10. 1880 had
agreed to purchase. as before stated The
stock SO purchased Of the Rarig Cnu-
many 10 be held by the treasurer as col
lateral security for the amounts due by
the subscribers OF the stock company
who had agreed to purchase Inc
$1,000 Of Rarig & Co. On the 9TH OF
February. 1892 the Alexander Is. ha-
rig Company made a general deed OF as
Segment TO one Mullen, trustee, to Sc
cure ratably all Of the debts of the COM
pauy. and I'm this deed every Vestige OF
the property OF the company was con-
viewed. including the records Of the bust
a Gnu al
action I'm favor of the company against
it's stockholders and other debtors arising
ON account OF subscriptions to stock or
otherwise Immediately. several credit
ors filed their bin TO enforce supply liens
due from the company, the Southern Rail
way Company uled a general creditors
hin and for the purpose OF having the
trust deed 90 Mullen administered under
the direction Of the Circuit Court of Rock
bridge. and these suits having been
brought on TO be heard together. a re-
cciver was appointed 10 take charge OF
all OF tho assets Of the company, and 10
administer them under the direction Of |
the court In a report by the receiver |
at the September term. 1885, he reported |
the action Of the stockholders of Sep
TENDER g. 1880 directing the treasurer OF |
the company 10 pay TO Alexander X. RAJ
rig & co. the $4,000 for the stock that |
the other stockholders of the company |
had agreed 10 purchase, and asked the |
direction Of the court as TO whether suit |
should be brought against Rarig & Co. |
and the subscribers to the stock OF the |
Alexander *. Rarig Company 20 recover |
this So 0oo and tho court at the same |
term directed the receiver TO sue. If he |
Should be 50 advised by his counsel At |
the September term. 1884 no further re- |
port having been made by the receiver |
"a 70 this matter the cause came on 10 |
be finally heard and q decree was en-
tered, In which IL was recited that q |
final settlement had been made with ali
tho creditors of the company entitled |
TO payment out of the trust fund and |
arising from the sale Of the companys |
property; ana further stating that the
object Of the suit had been accomplished.
ordered that the cause be stricken from
the docket. In March. 1896 the appel
l3nts. who were specifically named and
secured I'm the general deed Of assign
ment TO Mullen trustee and who had |
participated in the distribution OF the
assets OF the Alexander X. Rarig Com
pany, administered I'm the former suit.
and 10 which the appellants were ne
rcssarily parties. filed their bill OF COM
plant I'm the Circuit Court OF Rockbridge
setting out all the foregoing. facts and
asking that their bill be treated as
% petition In the former suit: that
the final decree I'm the former suit
entered at the September term. 1891 be
set aside and that cause reinstated on
the docket. that Alexander X Rarig and
the other parties TO the contract Of Au-
gust Is. 1890. be required to pay TO the
plaintiff the $4,000 improperly taken from
ne treasury Of the company and paid
20 Alexander X. Rarig under the rpsolu-
ton OF september 8. 1880. and that the
sand parties Doe required TO make good the
'-'0tV deficit in the capital stock Of the
Alexander X. Rarig Company. the mini
mum or which was required to be by its
charter $500 600. &c
To this bin the defendants demurred.
and the Circuit Court of Rockbrlde coun-
~ sustained the demurrer.
HELD.
Held That the bin cannot be treated
as petition 60 rchear. or as a bill OF
review as the decree asked TO be re-
heard Is Small decree. and the bill fails
FAR short of The requisites of a bill Of re-
view. 10 IS not sworn TO- does not set out
evidence. nor show er-
rors on The face OF the record in the
former suit, nor state any excuse or ex-
why these matters were not
lteated i'm The former suit nor claim
ignorance OF them prior 10 the final de-
cree
2. That the bill can only be treated as
I'm original bill. ana az it appears upon
he face OF the bin and exhibits there
with that an the matters set up therein
we're or might have been. and should
nave been, litigated In the original suit.
q a..