The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-17
ton Court OF Manchester. Reversed

| for and the refusal TO give them - CAT
culated 10 mlslead jury. a defendant
I'm possession. sued In ejcctment, s'ahuS
upon his possession. and the law requires
no defence at his hands TIL plaintin mas
made out prima facie title and shown
a present right under IT 10 recover.
NEGLIGENCE OF CARRIERS.
Danville street-Car Company VS.. Payne.
From the Corporation Court Of Danville.
Affirmed Opinion by Buchanan. Judge.
Mrs. Payne was injured on the street
/ car. Action for damages and judgment
for plaintiff on demurrer 20 evidence.
The evidence shows in this case that
| track. equipment, and service were ex-
| cellent: without which the presumption
! is that the injury was the result OF de-
| fcndant's negligence. To relieve itself
from liability ii must show that the ut
most diligence, skill. ana foresight could
not have prevented the accident. The
| track however was I'm a slippery con-
! dition from the effect OF slight fall OF
\ snow. which defendant insists was such
IAN accident. act Of God. or Wis major.
as relieved Il from liability for the In
| jury. Of which it was the direct cause.
! and which could not have been prevented
| by the utmost diligence, Skill ana lore
sight.
| Held: A slight fall Of snow In this ell
mate. I'm January, is not extraordinary,
| but usual and frequent, and such as de-
| PENDANT might have expected and ought
! to have provided for. II knew the erect
/ OF snow upon its track, and IL was its
plain duty to have kept the speed OF It's
/ cars under control. especially when APP
preaching a descending grade. In fact.
| the car was running at so high n rate OF
/ speed that It was observed and com
mented upon. The result Of this careless
| and under the circumstances, reckless
running Of the car was that when II
reached the down grade the defendant
had lost all control Of IT, The injury
was clearly the result Of defendants fali-
| IRE TO exercise that degree or diligence
| skill. and foresight which the law I'M
posed In the management OF It's car as
above referred to, and the Judgment is
affirmed.
CAPACITY TO CONTRACT.
Cbesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
vs.. Mosby. From the Chancery Court OF
Richmond city. Affirmed. Opinion by
| Harrison, Judge
Wosbv. a conductor on the Chesapeake
and Ohio. was seriously injured IN
| collision. His head was injured. one
arm broken. and the use of the other
| greatly impaired for some time. lie
| was confined 10 the house for month
! and suffered more or less for year.
| About two months after the accident he
went TO the Company's superintendent
and agreed upon a settlement of his claim
for damages, to receive SO a month for
| six months. and. If then unable TO re-
| sumo his duties as conductor. TO be fur-
| nished less laboriOus employment until
so able. Two months after agreement he
collected $500 on account of this settle
| nd therefor. when
| fully describes the accident and admits
that his injuries were received under cir
| cumstanccs generating the company
! from liability. Later he received $50, ana
| gave a more elaborate receipt to the same
effect, which also recited that tie amount
was received in full compromise, salts
! faction. and discharge of all claims or
/ causes Of action on his part arising from
| the collision. Mosby admits genuineness Of
| these papers but says he has no recol-
lection Of having signed any but the last;
| and insists that both shall be declared
null and void, because he was mentally
incompetent 10 execute them, and that
the company took advantage Of his in
| capacity TO procure them. And pending
his action for damages he files a bill TO
set aside this TeleaSp. cease heard by
lions only, and prayer of bill granted.
| only assignment Of error. that the court
| erred I'm granting him relief
| Held. The law presumes that every
| one has capacity 10 contract, and exemp-
ton from liability to fulfill an engagement
| by reason Of lack Of capacity can be
| allowed only after strict establishment Of
| such lack Protection can be claimed only
| In certain prescribed cases. and weakness
of mind, short Of Insanity. inmaturty OF
reason I'm an adult, or the mere absence Of
experience or skill upon the subject Of the
| particular contract affords. per Sc, no
| ground for relief I'm law or equity, l
| Gritty 1S6: though il may have that effect
| IL additional facts. betraying an inten-
ton to overreach can be proved. 2 Chitty
| 1886 This rule and its qualification sub
stantally adopted in Graft. 800.
Though the person may labor under no
| legal incapacty TO make a contract #
| the whole transaction. taken together with
| all the facts, mental weakness being one.
| show that cOnsent-the very essence of
| the act-were wanting. IT would be void.
II legal capacity be shown to exist: that
consent was freely given; and that no
fraud or undue influence was employed.
! the validity Of the act cannot be i'm
| peached. however unreasonable or i'm
| prudent.
The evidence wholly fails TO sustain the
plaintiffs (M) contention. and shows. on
| the contrary, thai he had an intelligent
comprehension Of his rights. There is
| nothing IN the record either to show
| that the consideration was inadequate:
| and. for aught that appears 10 the con-
trary. il may have been a wise contract
| for him to make; nor any evidence Of
| liability Of the company 10 him that
cannot be inferred: for in a suit by an
employe against a company, the mere
proof Of the accident raises no presump-
! ton of negligence.
There being no evidence that the SUI
perior power and influence of the COM
| many was exerted 10 plaintiffs disadvan-
| tage in any way. he has no just ground
| 10 complain Of that inequality.
The contract proven is clear and simple,
| and the evidence shows that il has been
| carried out in letter and spirit. The law
| favors compromise of disputed claims, and
| n settlement deliberately sought as this
| was by the plaintiff. ought not TO be set
| aside but upon the most satisfactory
| evidence.
SUMMARY.
1udge James Keith. President: Hutchins
| vs Hutchins. Circuit Court OF warwick
| county. Affirmed.
gloucester Charity School W. Nicholson.
| etc. Nicholson vs.. Gloucester Charity
| school. Circuit Court of Gloucester coun-
ty Reversed. .,.,.
| smith Corporation Court OF Manches-
ter Reversed. nj
Judge r. II. Cardwell: Riggan VS.. Rig
| gan. Circuit Court Of MecklenbUrg coun-
| ~ Reversed.
| Judge John A. buchanan: Danville
| Street-Car Company VS.. Payne. Corpora
I