Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-13

levy q tax for district-schooI purposes
on the property Of railroads is the same
now as II was when the case OF the
Virginia and Tennessee Railroad Com
pany VS.. Washington county, SUPRA, WINS
decided"
REMEDY IN THE LEGISLATURE.
III. under the statutes. as they now
stand" concludes the opinion. "the coun-
" OF Northampton and other counties
OF the State are deprived OF a source
of revenue for district-schooi purposes
from property OF telegraph. telephone
and railroad companies within the limits
Of the several maglsteriai or school as
tricts OF such counties. II 10 for tnf
Legislature to apply the remedy. II
seems clear that no such remedy existed
when the levy IN this case was maoc.
For these reasons we are of the OPINION
that the decree complained OF Is errone-
Gus, and should be reversed. and TINS
court will enter such decree as the court
below should have entered. perpetuaune
the Injunction, with costs to the appel-
liant"
The General Assembly. just before i'S
recent adjournment, enacted ieslsiet ioh
TO meet this decision. which was ahe'ci-
pated.
Another opinion OF great importance
was delivered in the Court Of Appeals
Yesterday I'm the case of the Richmond
and Allegheny Railroad Company and
othera against the r. A. Patterson To-
bacco Company The effect OF the deci~
sion is 10 declare section 1925 of the Code
Of Virginia TO be CONSTITUTIONAL ana
that the railway company Is not re-
snonsible for goods lost after II had pass
ed beyond its line.
The history Of the case - tnat on
August /. 1883, the Patterson company
delivered TO the receivers OF the Richmond
and Allegheny road lot Of tobacco con-
signed TO Mann & Levy at Bayou sara.
Ia. The bill of ladng was in It's usual
form and stipulated that II the destination
was beyond the point fer which rates
were named in the margin. the packages
might be delivered to any other carrier
TO be transported 10 the ultimate point,
and the carrier so selected should be re-
garded exclusively as the agent OF the
owner or consignee. II was also mutually
agreed that the liability or each carrier
as to the goods destined beyond It's own
route should be terminated by proper de-
livery Of them TO the next succeeding
carrier.
THE GOODS WERE LOST
The tobacco was lost after 1t left the
possession Of the Richmond and Allie
ghany road, and the sole question sub
mltted to the court for it's decision was
whether section 1895 CT the Code was In
conflict with article /. section S, clause 3,
Of the Constitution of the United States.
II being agreed that II said section was
constitutional the Richmond and Ale
ghany Company was responsible for the
loss OF the tobacco. BY its decree the
Circuit Court of Richmond held that the
section Of the Code was not In conflict
with the Constitution ofsthe United States
and the prayer of the petition was grant
ed and a decree was rendered In favor Of
the petitioner for the sum Of S299.1, and
the railroad company appealed.
THE SECTION CONSTITUTIONAL.
The section Of the Code referred to pro-
vides that when a common carrier ac-
cents any article for transportation to a
point beyond the terminus Of its own
line or route It shall be deemed thereby
to assume an obligation for its safe car
rage TO its destination unless at the time
of acceptance the carrier be released from
such liability by contract in writing, sign
ed by the owner or his agent, and
although there may be such contract I'm
writing II the thing shipped be lost or
injured the carrier shall himself be liable
therefor, unless within a reasonable
time dlltT DC Hduc he Sl4dAl give
satisfactory proof to the consignOr that
the loss or injury did not occur while the
thing was In his charge.
Judge Keith, in very able opinion,
decided that the section OF the Code re-
ferred to was constitutional, and the
decree was affirmed
OTHER CASES DECIDED
Three other opinions were rendered yes
terday In the following cases.
Lennon VS.. Herbert. trustee. From
the Circuit Court of Fairfax. Affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Harrison
Williams VS. Watkins. From the Cir
cult Court Of Charlotte county. Affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Riley.
Richmond Union Passenger Railway
Company VS.. New York and Sea-Beach
Railway Company. Writ Of error and
supensedeas to a judgment of the Court
Of Law and Equity for the city OF Rich
mond.
Ter and others. From the Circuit Court
for the city Of Lynchburg. Appeal and
supersedeas Bond, $500.
Mutual Life-Insurance Society of New
York VS.. Oliver. Writ of error and super
sedeas to a judgment of the Law and
Equity Court OF the city OF Norfolk.
Bond. 5000.
Bradford Salt Company VS.. Norfolk
Importing and Exporting Company.
Court of Law and Equity city Of Norfolk.
Write of error and supersedeas awarded.
Bond. $780,
Niche and ais. vs. Cochran and ais.
Circuit Court OF Albemarle. Appeal
awarded Bond. 500.
Wilson and ais. VS.. Wilson. Circuit
Court OF Augusta Appeal and superse-
IDEAS. Bond $500
Early & Clark vs.. Commonwealth. Writ
of error and eupersedeas 10 the Hastings
Court OF the city of Roanoke.
Hambrick and ais. VS.. Showalter and
ais. Circuit Court Of Floyd county. APP
peal and supersedeas. Bond, $40.
Foard VS.. Gamble. Circuit Court OF the
city of Roanoke Writ of error refused.
O'Hagan VS.. Commonwealth. Writ of
error refused to the Hastings Court for
the city OF Richmond
Brock VS.. Commonwealth. From Prin-
cess Anne county. Writ of error refused.
Houghton VS.. Mountain Lake Land
Company. Upon a motion OF the appellees
TO remove the above entitled cause TO
Richmond. Motion granted, and an or
der will be entered removing and placing
Il upon the privileged docket here to be
heard at the present term.