Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-02-08
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS


Stanley, &c., VS.. Stanley, SC. From
the Circuit Court of Hanover. Affirm
ed. Opinion by Harrison, judge. Con
struction of will. 81 give and be
queath to NJ. L. S. the interest that ma.
accrue on one-fourth part of my money
bonds, &C., during the period of he
natural life, and at her death, this one
fourth part to her children, to be equal
ly divided" When testatrix died, NJ
L. S. had three children, but when thi
suit was brought she had only one, th'
other two having died in the interim
Held: NJ. L. S. took life estate in tht
fourth part in the money, bonds, &c.
and her children living ut the death o
the testatrix took the remainder in the
principal, in absolute estate, share ant
share alike; and upon the death of any
of the children of M. L. 8. in her life
time, the share of such deceased child
passed to said child's personal repre-
sentative for the payment of debts and
distribution.
Aylett, trustee, vs.. Walker. From
the Circuit Court of King and Queen
county. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Keith, president. Only question OF
pleading is decided in this case. There
were two frms-Walker 6 Co., and
Walker, Lamb & Co. The latter
made an assignment to Aylett,
and he as assignee brought suit
against Walker & Co. Two of tho par
ties, W. and L., were members of both
firms, and as such plaintiffs and defend: !:
ants in the same suit. Plea: That they
could not sue each other at law. OF.
iected to, but permitted by the court,
and appeal. Held: at common law, a
person could not in the same action be
both plaintiff and defendant. The ac
tion here is on an open account. The
assignor's right to bring an action
upon it is wholly dependent upon Sec
ion 2S6O of the code. This confers no
right on the assignee which the assignor
himself did not have, and as the as
siguor had no such right, it follows that
the assignee acquired none.
City Of Petersburg VS.. Todd. From
the Hastings Court of Petersburg. AT
tirmed. Opinion by Judge Keith, presi-
dent.
Todd, driving along 8 street, col
lided with a waterplug projecting
above the ground more than foot.
whereby his vehicle was overturned,
and he sustained serious injury.
There was no light or signal near the
water-plug, and it was a dangerous OBJ
struction TO the street or highway, we'll
known to the defendant, which per-
mitted il to remain, notWitbstanding
its dangerous character, and without
any care or precaution for the public
driving or riding along the street.
These are the allegations Of the declara-
ton, which was demurred to, and the
demurrer was properly overruled.
Richmond Granite Company VS..
Bailey. From the Circuit Court Of
Henrico. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Keith, president. This is an action for
damages, and the defence relied on his
contributory negligence and the negli-
gence of fellow servant. Both Of
| these contentious are negatived by the
evidence adduced by the plaintiff in
error. Held 1t is the duty of the
master to furnish his employees with a
safe place in which to do the work as
signed them; to furnish suitable ma
terials and machinery; to establish and
promulgate rules which will give them
reasonable protection from injury; and
to guard them against such accidents
and casualties as may be reasonably
foreseen. Bailey on Masters Liability
Oh. 5.
Staude, &c., vs. Keck, &c. From
the Chancery Court of the city of Rich
moud. Opinion by Judge Cardwell.
Demurrer to bill for multifariousness
sustained; bill dismissed, and appeal
therefrom. Held: Courts in dealing
with the question of multifariousness,
look particularly to convenience in the
administration of justice; and if
this is accomplished by the mode
of proceedings adopted, the OBJ.
lection of multifariousness will not
lie, unless the course pursued is 80
injurious to one party as to make it in
equitable to accomplish the general
convenience at his expense. The first
question is, does the bill reach the end
aimed at in convenient way for all
concerned. 1t yes, then is any one
hurt by it or 30 injured as to make ii
unjust for the suit to be maintained in
that form I? % s. E. Rep, %.
The bill here having largely de-
parted from these general principles,
the decree of the court below must be
affirmed.
Fitch VS.. Commonwealth. From the
Hastings Court of Staunton. Reversed
Opinion, by RELY, Judge. This was 8
prosecution for perjury. Fitch was
tried and convicted of perjury in thai
tribunal, it having been alleged that he
swore falsely in the case of John b
Baker, charged with the BETRAYAL O.
Miss Eliza j. Young. The materia
points involved in the controversy
before the Court of Appeals were
as to the jurisdiction of the courl
and the manner in which ths
Indictment was drawn, it being con
tended that there was fatal error in tn,
latter in that it did not charge tha
Fitch had sworn falsely, but simply Sc
forth the substance of his testimony ii
the cases referred to. The court her.
refers to the statute on perjury, whicl
is as follows: "If any person to whom
/ an oath is lawfully administered OF
any osssaon wilfnlly swear falsely o.