The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-31
SUPREME COURT CASES.
4DIGEsTOFTHEO OPINIONS HANDED
DOWN YESTERDAY.
Elackford vs.. Rogers--GaskiDs and Others
vs.. Hunton-DariIng vs.. Cummings
Executors and Others.


Following is a digest OF opinions hand
ed down in the Supreme Court yesterday
Ilackford against Rogers. From the
{. cult Court OF Princess Anne County
Affirmed. Opinion by President Keith
This was an action OF trespass quare
clausum fregit.
Held: In Cooke against Thornton
Rand. :, IL was held that TINS acuoh
could not be maintained unless thS
plaintiff was shown to be in actual pos
session when the alleged tresoass was
committed but I'm Van Brunt against
Schenck, II Johnson's Rep, 49, Spencer
j., says that in this country the
principle as to real properly has beeE
carried further than In England, anu
We allow the owner 20 maintain uespass
without actual entry on the principle ,hht
possession follows ownership unless theie
be an adverse possession. i am not
aware OF any case which oyerrulSs COOKE
against Thornton. supra. nor, indeed, OF
any case in this court which throws any
doubt upon IL, bat IL having been suS-
gested that a different practice has grown
up. more in conformity with the law as
stated in the quotation from Van Brun1
against Schenck, supra, than with u, we
have thought 1t prudent TO refrain from
may prove an interesting and Important
question until the decision Of IL IL called
for upon the record.
The evidence IN the case before the
court tending 10 show possession in the
defendant in error at the time of the
allcLed trespass. and negauVing the claim
OF possession. actual or constructive, IN
the plaintiff in error, IL is wholly unneces-
sary TO pass upon 1t, and the Judgment
below must be affirmed"
Gaskins and others against Hunton.
From the Circuit Court Of Fauquier. Al
iirmed. Opinion by Judge Buchanan.
involving the construction or a VIII.
Held: IL Is a settled rule OF construction.
both In deeds ana wills that If an estate
Is conveyed, or an interest given. or d
Denent bestowed, In one part OF the in
| strument by clear unambiguous and eN-
pnclt words, suen estate, interest, or
benefit Is not diminished nor destroyed by
words in another part OF the Instrument
unless the terms which diminish or de-
strQy the estate before given be as clear
and decisive as the terms by which Il
was created. II Graft. /: % Graft, 224-
lnsii. 1857
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Com
pany vs.. American and Exchange Bank:
fIom tne circuit Court, OF Lynchbufg
Affirmed. Opinion by judge Buchanan.
me contract for shipping horses and
mules provided that Ia consideration OF
a reduced rate the railroad COMPANY
or damage In loading, forwarding, OF
unloading, for want OF food or water, or
any other cause incident TO railroad
transportation. except for fraud or gross
negligence In forwarding the particulars
cars IN which the stock was loaded.
and that the shipper should load and
unload and feed and water the stock
AT his own risk and expense.
Held: Although the contract of the
shipper may have been valid and
binding one. il was the duty of the COM
pany 10 provide suitable and safe facili-
ties for loading and unloading the stock.
and also Tor feeding and watering them
whilst being carrie' over its line of road.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
VS.. Hartman d Crockett. 81 Va, y. >.
r.. Rep, 400. Hutchinson on Carriers.
sec. 3Zz a. A failure to provide such
facilities IS negligence, against which a
common carrier Is not permitted to con-
tract, Va. Code, sec. 1886, 81 Graft, IBID
~ Graft, 32S.
In addition to the duty imposed upon
a common carrier of live stock by the
common law, the revised statutes OF the
United States provide that common car
rlers upon interstate lines OF Transports
ton, shall not conilne cattle, sheep,
swine or other animals" In cars, boats
or vessels OF any description for d long
err period than twenty eight hours with
out unloading the same for rest, water
and feeding, for A period or at least hV'
consecutive hours, unless prevented ny
I
Though not specifically named. horses
and mules are IN the terms OF this sta
tute under the general designation OF
other animals" The object of the sta
tuta was TO prevent cruelty and injury
10 animals shipped long distances, and II
Is a humane, rather than a SANITARY
regulation. There Is nothing IN the sta.
tute 10 indicate thar only animals USED
for food were embraced In II, but rat ne
all animals which would suffer In ike
manner with cattle, etc, for want Oh
food, water. OF rest, while being shipped
long distances
! enforce the penal laws OF another, Wnllt
"a Derfectlv correct statement OF the
law is not applicable in this case III
order 10 come within its scope the ac-
ton or suit must be IN the nature OF
proceeding In favor or the state
whose laws have been violated. 10 l
me fact that there is a penalty, pay
able 70 the United states Tor the IN
fraction OF this statute does not pre-
vent those who have been injured through
jas infractiOn. from recovering dalhas,
therefor Where a duty Imposed Il
obviously meant TO be public duty, ano
the penalty for its violation Is maze
pavable 10 the State. or to an infofmef
he right or an individual Injured %
maintain an action on the case Tor Dredcf
of the duty, owing 20 him Is unquestlon
able" Cooley on rorts list Ed.), -.
one or me DbJttta u AH' ~
Stattites OF the United States section
4gS6. was 10 prevent loss 10 owners o
live stock resulting from l9ng-distanc'
shipments by common carriers, Withou
food water. and rest The plainnif mere
heinz one OF the class intended 10 be pro
fected has a right Of action for a viola
nom OF the statute and having such rish
! could bring his action in the state court
Wherever by either the common law
a.. the statute law OF "A state right 81
action has become fixed and Legal ia
/ hnifv incurred. that liability may be en-
forced and the right OF action pursued ~
any court which has jurHdiction OF suci
matters. and can obtain jurisdiction o
tbs nariie-" 1903 T.. 3. II. H. IL.
In ~ Ga 30. Il was held that. unde
the section of the Revised statutes OF IN
f-rtted state under consideration here, !
"a railroad company kept horses on III
cars for more than twenty eight hour'
uitbout unloading them for rest, water
and food. IT was negligence per sc, an'
tbat such company vas not only lapi'
for the penalty prescribed by the stAtuie
hut also for any damage or injury ,here
Inv sustained by the owner OF me horses
Z In order 20 escape the penalty unde
/ tbo e.coption OF the statute, STORM o
cher accidental Causes the deienian
aN ~