The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-03-13
HiGHcOURT OF VIRGINIA
Judges Keith and cardHeI Hand Down
Opinions Concerning Important Gases.
RICHMOND ARD ALLEGHAAYLosT FREIGHT
The Decision in ttte stattcr OF ,aa
New York, philadelphia and Nor.
folk Road Against The Bonrd OF
Supervisors of Northnnp,on on Coun.
~ Rendered by Judge CardweIl.

~ 1hNSe CarGRCII.
richmond. Va. March 12.-A verV
important decision was rendered bv tba
state supreme Court OF Appeala here
to-day In the case OF the Rfchmof,ii
anu AHeghany Railroad Company and
others against the r. A. Patterson To,
Dacco Company - K
On August !. 1888 the Patterson Com.
panw delivered to the receivers of the
richmond and Alieghany road q lot OF
TOBACCO consigned TO Mann e. Lew al
isayou sara. La. The bill of lading was
IN is usual form and stimulated that 70
N" destination was beyond that mint
ior whlch rates were named in the mar
gin the packages might be delivered 10
any other carrier to be transported TO
me ultimate point. and the carrier so
selected should be regarded exclusively
rs he agent of the owner or consignee.
IT was also mutually agreed that the
liability OF each carrier as to the goods
destined beyond It's own route should
ne terminated by proper delivery OF
thcm TO the next succeeding carrier. 4
1he tobacco was lost after 1t left tho
possession OF the Richmond and Alleaha. /.
ny road. and the sole question submitted
10 the Court for Its decision was whether
section 1885 Of the code. was in con-
nj with article l.. section s. clause 8, or
the constitution Of the United States. II
being agreed that If such section was
constitutional. the Richmond and Alle- 4
snany Company was responsible for the
loss Of the tobacco. BY It's decree the
Circuit Court of Richmond held that
he section Of the code was not in con-
tiict with the constitution. and the pray-u
cr of the petition was granted and Is
decree was rendered In favor Of the
petitioner for the sum of S229.71 ana the
railroad company appealed. $3.50 Il
The section of the code referred 80
ri t1,nt 49,.
accepts any article for Transportation
to n point beyond the terminus Of It's /
own line or route II sha1l7Nbe deemed I
thereby to assume All obligation for It's b
safe cnrriaEe to its destination, unless
at the time of acceptance the carrier be-
released from such liability by contract!
In writing, signed by the owner or hiss
agent, and although there may be such
contract In writing. if the thing should
be lost or injured the carrier shall him
self be liable therefor. unless. within q
reasonable time after demand be made,
he shall give satisfa ctory proof to the
consignor that the loss or injury did not
occur while the thing was In his charge.
Judge Keith, in very able opinion,
decided that the section Of the code re-
ferred to was constitutional and the
decree was affirmed. S5
Judge Cnrdwell handed down the of,in.5
ion in the case of the New York, Phiia4
delphia and Norfolk railroad Vs. the
BOARD of Supervisors of Northampton
county. The question involved was the
power OF the Supervisors to tax the
company for district school purposes.
Tho Court decided that Supervisors had 1
no right to levy tax on railroad tele-
graph and telephone companies for dia..
trict school purposes. and the decree of
the lower court was reversed and the
injunction was perpetuated. Anticipate
Ing the verdict of the Court, the Legis-%
a a
act to correct the defects In the law ex.S
listing when the levy in Northampton
was made. J5s
Other decisions were as follows.
Lennon vs.. Herbert, trustee. from the
Circuit Court or Fairfax; affirmed; opin-$
ion by Judge Riley. zy
Williams vs. Watkins. from the Cir
cult Court of Charlotte county, affirmed;
opinion by Judge Harrison. sES%
Richmond Union Passenger Railway.
| Company VS. Now York and Sea Beach
| Railway Company. writ Of error and /;
super sedeas to a judgment Of the Court
of Law and Equity for the city Of Rfeh-sl
mond sss$
| Commercial Bank. of Lvnchburg, VS.
Miller and others from the Circuit Courtss
for the city of Lynchburg. Appeal and Il
| supersedeas: bond $500
| Mutual Life Insurance Society, aofs55i
New York. VS.. Oliver. writ of error and q
| supersedeas to a judgment of the Law
and Equity Court Of the City OF NorfolksSs 81
bond $4,000. ~,
Bradford Salt Company vs.. Norfolk0l
Importing and Exporting Company, cost 81
OF Law and Equity. city of Norfolk y
writ of error and supersedeas awarAedssf
bond 500. 3FSE 4s
Niche and Others VS.. Cochran ana
others, Circui; Court of Afabamarle. AtsG
! peal awarded; bond $500.
Wilson and others vs. Wilson. CircUitS
Court of Augusta. Appeal and superage
! deas: bond $1,000. ss sS;
Early & Clark VS., CommonwealthsSs
writ of erro, and supersedeas to t!issS
Hastings Court city Of Roanoke. sss
| IIanabry and others VS.. Showalter sfiSs 8
others Circuit Court OF Floyd county,
Appeal and supersedeas: bond $15o. szssF
Foard VS.. Gamble. circuit Court clty@
| of Roanoke Writ of error refused
O'Haean VS.. Commonweaith,5W writ I'll 4
error refused to the Hastings Court fors
| the city OF Richmond. =. at SSssss 4
Brock VS.. Conwnonwea lth. from fsri
cess Anne county. Writ of error refused .sS
| Houghton VS.. Mountain Lake II ami
Company. Upon motion of the appeS seaS
to remove the above entitled Sca,isa ifSs I
! Richmond. Motion granted ard 5a iiS S0fsss
der will be entered removing III an d sniaHs
ing It on the privileged docks R9rS 8ss sssY