The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-24
SUPREME COURT CASES.
SEFERAL IMPORTANT OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN YESTERDAY.
Compensation for Land Used for Public
Highway-Lisbil ity Of a Railroad to
its Employees Other Digests.

ct ais. Opinion by Judge Rely. writ
of error to a judgment OF the Circuit
Court of Alexandria county affirming
Judgment OF the County Court, Al
nrmed.
The sole question for decision was as TO
whether the amount G0y-aliowed the
plaintiff I'm error was just compensation
for the use OF its land, which was taken
for a public road established through II.
The company owns a stone quarry Oh
three acres on the south side OF the
Potomac river, which IL has worked BACK
$50 feet from the present water-llne.
The Court ordered the road 20 be estao-
Nshed across the yard OF the quarry,
which il the SPACE between the present
line of the river and the face OF the
quarry The viewers recommehaea p'"e
the road be established, and that II wOulu
ia Of e,tcb great convenience and beneht
IN tho company that they were not en-
titled TO any damages The i've com
missioners subsequently appointed by the
County Court reported mat peyohu w
REGULAR benefits 20 be derived ina. Soo'
was a just compensation Tor uaih"sSs'
Their report Is to be regarueu a. 0',,e' ~,
siva on the question Of damages. uh'u
IL is shown 10 the satisfaction OF the Court
ia h. insufficient. Mitchell vs.. morn
TON Of ais, q Graft. 1874. All the eNl-
dence uroduccd before the commissioners
vas returned 20 the Court, tugether WIN
80 p ren.rt No other or addltlJhai e'F
donce was AT any time produced
,rhe law requires that the commissioners
erau themselves view the lanu' an" III,
Lazy Justly lays great stress upon ~ -
attaches much valua to their report NJ
being greatly aided. as IN TINS Sa'e, ~
tboir ov-n senses In judging OF the Valu'
q H.. ..ffa
,,r,,f,,ced bv the road upon the residue
M court being without their oipoI tdh'
H., A. sholld be a clear case, lhueeu' "a
t,,ieouate compensation 70 lusuiy II -,
TiSt,rhirv their sworn, deliberate az"
4t.t,terested Judgment. No sa'siae
go, re,son being disclosed ny inc -
dc,oo for disturbing this report OF sm'
commissioners. which receiver me -,
,ro,ai off both the County anu -,
Co',,ts tho Judgment OF the circuit Oou''
was therefore affirmed
COMPETENT TESTIMONY.
Ware, vs. warren. Judge Buchailah;
-, 10 error to the Circuit court VI
ran,oe Citv county. Affirmed.
mn orlv assignment OF error releu OH
f.. a. tho action Of the court IN allowing
certain evidence TO 20 TO the jury ~
v-hich the defendant. cine pialnuI III ei-
ror, objected. The ground OK ouJeS''oi
rointad out and relied on by the ueleiu-
amt I'm the lower court to the introduo,loh
| of tho copv of the will Of Michael >. war
ron and the decree Of the court setting
if mn az stated i'm the bill Of exceptions,
was that while the viii set mp by SAID
| decree might boz proper evidence, that the
decree itself was not as IT was state
ment of what had taken place in another
suit with the Judges opinion In regard 10
the same" and therefore was improper
evidence and preiudiclal TO the defend
ants case. In this court the plaintiff IN
error bases his objection 10 the evidence
uuom unothsr and altogether different
ground 10 that set up in his bill of ex-
cepuOn.
AS a general rule. a party will not be
allowed to specify one or more grounds
of objection to evidence offered I'm the
trial court and rely upon other grounds
| iu the appellate courts. He IS regarded
| as having waived all other objection TO
the evidence except those which he pointed
ont specifically"
IL Is the duty of the party to present
the grounds of his objection 10 the judge
who IS not required to pass upon obiec-
| ion not discovered or disclosed. II Is also
| due 70 the party offering the evidence
| that n the objection is well taken. he may
| have an opportunity 10 remedy the defect
| pointed out and the case tried on its
! merits IN appellate court IL not a new
! forum, but q court Of review and should
| have the same question presented 10 1t as
| that presented 10 the court below and IS
! merely 10 determine whether the question
! there presented were determined correct
| ly. Wynn vs.. Harman. Graft l57. l67.
| camden vs. Duromur = c.. Of the T.. s.
| Thompson on Trials Soc 693, etc.
Held. That the defendant waived all
! objections 10 the admssiblity Of the evil
donce in question, except uDon the specific
| ground set ont il IFS bin Of excop-
| TONS rs that ground being without merit
| lhe Judgment OF be Circuit Court was at
| frmed.
BRIEF DIGEsTs.
! Franklin Clark n COMPANY We tho
/ commercial Bank OF Lynchburg. From
tAe Corporation Court of Lynchburg. Az
| himed, Judge Keith delivering the opinion
This case decides that where "A gar
nlshce against whom Judgment had Al.
! ready been rendered, afterwards pavs the
salary of the judgment debtor 10 the
! Judgment debtors assignee. the earnlsnoe
cannot protect himself by saying that
he IS endorser Oh notes OF the judgment
! debtor. who is insoiycnt. Held, also that
| appellant had no equity on the merits
Lubank VS.. Barnes. From the Circuit
! Court Of Aleckenburg. Reversed. judge
! Harrison delivering the opinion.
| This was a case of laches. depending
| upon the facts which were briefly these.
| j. j. Barnes owns a farm which was
| subjected TO judgments. Kate Barnes.
| hls daughter. held two small judgments
against her father. Her father, claim
| ing 10 act for her, assigned them 10 IS .
| III. Eubank. and Eubank bought the
farm. Eubank then allowed Barnes and
| his daughter TO remain on the farm for
] ten years, when Barnes died, and then
| he let the daughter remain for one year
| longer 90 Tx up her affairs. Then the
farm was rented out by Eubank, where
upon VI. Kate Barnes. the daughter
| brought suit charging her dead father
with conspiring ~ith Eubank 10 lefraud
| her out OF The two small judgments, when
her father, claiming TO act Tor her. mad
assigned to Eubank ten years before.
She had lived upon the farm by the kind
ness Of Eubank. for over ten years. and
| during that whole time had never as
serted her rights. or that she had been
| defrauded; and IL was held that she had
slept on her rights. was guilty OF laches
| and without equity.
! Houghton, &c. vs.. Mountain Lake Land
| Company. From the Hastings Court OF
Radf0r1. Decree amended and affirmed.
| Opinion by Judge @. NJ. Harrison.
Appeal from a decree refusing 10 allow
! the appellants to file a petition. asking
ttat proceedings be suspended and the
| confirmation Of sale Of real estate be
postponed until the matters I'm contrO-
| versy set UP 10y the petition were adju-
dlcated i'm certain ether pending suits.
The petition OH tia face made a prima
an hu