The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-06-26
THE SUPRHME COURr.
Opinions Handed Down at WytheviIle
Thursday


Thursday
WlTHENILLE. VA, June 25-Special.
The following opinions were handed down
to-day IN the supreme Court OF Appeals
| OF Virginia
ClaIston and ais. VS.. Virginia CoaI ana
| Iron Company. Opinion by JUICE REILLY.
/ From the Circuit Court OF Lee county.
/ Affirmed The controversy in mis- case
turned upon the proper construction OF
| one n the calls OF Tire patent fct the
| land involved. In one parti che call
required the line run with thA TOD OF a
weil-known mountain ridge while the
| course Of the same tall prescribed q
| straight line. II the course described by
/ The degree was followed The line not
! only did not run with the top u the
/ ridge. or even keep with the ridge but
In great part left the ridge ,..toss .ner.
| Held, that whore such repugnancy exists
| in a call between permanent natural
| object, as river. creek. mountain. or
ridge, and the course and the distance
| the general rule IS that the na7ira. bound
airy must control, and that ~ this case
the line should run with the top II the
| ridge and The course ana distance be-
/ dl5regarded.
Sulphur Mines Company VS.. .homp-
| sons heirs FI~-- the Circuit -ourt OF
| Louisa county. Reversed Opiuion by
| Judge Buchanan The points decided
| were the following: First, the proper
| parties TO bring AN action Of eject nent
| TO recover land conveyed 10 "a party who
| is described as the executor OF another,
are the heirs or devisees Of the grantee.
whether the land was bought Tor him
self or for the benefit OF the estate Of
| which he was executor.
Second Power Of sale conferred hy
deed Of trust executed 20 secure debt
| is not revoked by tine death Of any or
| all of the parties. but is irrevocaolc.
Third. Upon the death of trustee,
where persona, representative is sutn0r-
izcd by the deed Of trust 20 execute the
trust, the title 20 the land dcsccnds To- he
heirs Of the trustee. 10 be held oy .Eem
| for the purpose OF the trust and the
power OF sale by The terms Of the .rust
| passed to his personal representative.
| This representative can make sale Of
| the land without the Intervention of 81
court of equity
Fourth. But as his power s. naked
power not coupled with the legal title,
| the rccitals in IBIS deed 10 the purchaser
are not prima-facic evidence "A the facts
r./iel that the conditions have arisen
upon which 10 sale was authorized and
that the provisions Of the trust have been
complied with IN making the sale. Where
uo possession is shown 10 have been
taken OFF the land under the deed, the
party claiming under IL must show these
facts By evidence aiundc.
Fifth. A private map or plat or land
shown 10 u purchaser when DE buys. but
not referred 10 in the deed made 90 him,
and embracing land not covered by his
deed, cannot Doe considered color OF title
orr VS.. Pennington. administrator cir
cult Court Of Lee county. Aihrmed. Opln-
ion hy Judge Buchanan. A party who
has knowledge OF mis- rights, or the means
Of acquiring knowledge, as 10 whether a
CONVEYANCE was made by the grantor
when he was of unsound mind. OF by lea-
son OF undue influence exercised over him.
by the grantee, and delays bringing suit
for nine years and until after both parties
10 the deed are dead without giving any
reason either in the blll or proof Tor the
delay is guilty Of laches and his bill
should be dismissed.
l., 4 y. Railroad Company VS.. Taylor
and others Opinion by Judge buchanan
Circuit Court q Lee county Reversed
A county Judge IS disqualified from sitting
In a case where he has been counsel, out
A. he does hear the case his action is not
void but vadahle merely, and will be
reversed upon error or appeal. court
OF equity has no jurisdiction TO inter-
fere
Early and Clark vs. the commonwealth.
Corporation Court. city of Roanoke. Re
versed. opinion by Judge Keith. p. q.
The only point Of interest in this arises
unon q demurrer 20 the indictment. The
indictments fails 10 state that the OF ence
was committed within the city OF Roanoke
or 10 state I'm any manner the locality
Of the crime. II AYERS that the offence was
committed within the jurisdiction or the
court Held that TIN swas a conclusion
of law. and not a statement or iact' 'l"t
the Indictment should have set out the
facts necessary 10 give he court JuIls-
diction. failing 10 do 40. the demurrer
should have been sustained.
orr & TJton vs.. GoOdlOe, trustee, 81
ale and orr VS.. Goodloe, trustee, 81 as
C,rcuit Court Of Wise county. Aflrm'h'
Ooinion bv Judge Keith =. Both cases
disposed OF i'm the same opinion
These were suits brought by Goonio''
trustee. 10 recover the balance OF inc
purchase money due upon the io's SOU
10 orr A. Iuon. and for which vendor
lion vas reserved The defendants IN
the circuit Court who were the appel
ionts here claimed that they had been
induced 10 purchase by the false repre-
sensations OF their vendors. which con-
sisted tn the statement made pending
the negotiation for the purchase OF the
los tLat q hotel was 10 erected. bridge
10 be built and streets To be graded. The
Court held that these were not representa-
lions OF existing fact hut al most OF
n-eseut PURPOSE TO erect a hotel. bridge.
and 10 grade tho streets I'm the future.
which was liable to be changed. and were
not such representations that should have
deceived or mislcd the purchaser.
Fayette Land Company vs.. L. and y
Railroad Company. Circuit Court Of Wise
county. Afirme3. Opinion by Judge
Keith, =.
The l.. and n. Railroad Company sold
to the Fayette Land Company a tract OF
land for QSQ goo $40 900 cash, and q yen-