The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-20

I January, 1896, and X. the dividend de-
clarod on the Woollcn Mills stock at that
| time. The MoOllen Mills declared a cash
! dividend of 10 per cent, and there being
an accumulated surplus in the treasury
! the capital stock was increased by ina
! stockholders 10y capitalzins part OF the
| surplus. issuing common stock therefor
! pro rata among the holders of both com
mon and preferred stock. *. claimed that
in addition TO the 10 per cent. cash divi-
dend he was also entitled to his share OF
the surplus in the treasury, so capitalized.
| etc
He'd. a stock dividend is not a divi-
| dond in the ordinary sense but merely
an Increase in the number Of shares rep
Tesentng exactly the same properly as
was represented Dy the smaller number.
Corporate earnings, until distributed
| are part OF tine corporate property. Acci-
INFLATED profits belong 10 the company
and acting in good idith, ana for the
best interest OF AL concerned, the corpO-
ration may capitalize its surplus, may IN
vest 10 in its work and plant, preserve
il for possible falling of IN earnings IN
the future. or distribute 1t TO its stock
holders as income. Gibbon vs.. Mahon,
~ L.. s, SO
3. The stock dividend repre- -ented part
OF the corporate stock sold 10 H., IN which
*. reserved no interest and was entitled
10 no part.
VOID DEED.
Dellnger ". Faltz. From the Circuit
Court OF Shenandoah Reversed. Opin-
| ion by Harrison, judge.
c. and j.. owned land jointly with their
brother r. as heirs OF their mother. SUBJ
/ jet 10 their fathers courtesy. The rather
and T., in his own right and as guardian
OF his infant brothers, G.. and j., conveyed
this land by deed in exchange for other
land, agreeing TO pay bonus of Sl,sa0,
for which they gave bond secured by ven
doris lien reserved boo the deed 20 them.
T.. assignee Of these bonds. instituted suit
10 enforce payment hy a sale Of the land.
Appellants. now become Of age. made
parties defendant. Biil set out facts al
ready stated. and charged that the ex-
change was made and bonds executed
by guardian with consent and at request
OF appellants. and that since their major
ity they had radihed and approved the
same. were ia possession, and had made
payments on the bonds since attaining
full age. bin taken for confessed as 10
an defendants. decree Tor balance Of
unpaid purchase money against all Of
them, and for sale OF the land.
Appellants cnjoined execution Of this
decree. and i'm their bin denied all the
averments Of the former bin. and alleged
that they utterly rcpudiated the contract,
that their guardian had no right 10 dis
pose Of their interest in the land. and
oraycd that the decree Doe rehcard and set
aside. that the deeds of exchange Doe
vacated and they Doe restored % their
original rights. and for general relief
Lower court dissolved injunction ana
dismissed the bill. having first treated u
as "a bin Of review for the purpose Of
modifying the decree Of sale in SO Gar as
IL was "a personal decree. upon the ground
that there could Doe no personal decree
before the sale: holding that the appel
lants. though minors when exchange was
made. were of age before suit was
brought. and they made parties. and hay
ing made no defence were concluded by
the decree OF sale.
Held. j. II was error 20 treat the bill
as bill Of review 90 modify tho decree.
a bin Of review being the remedy TO
correct a final decree while this was only
intcriOcutOrv. Cookies Administrator SIS.
Giinin. I Rob. Rvan's Administrator VS..
Mcleod % Graft. Rawlings rs. Rawlines.
% Va. TO correct any error On that decree
tho bin Of injunction should have been
treated az a petition 10 rehear. and 10 is
settled that there may be a personal de-
cree before sale. and not merely for the
balance due after crcditIng proceeds of
sale of the land. Tayette Land Company
VS.. l.. and y. r. l.. Co.. q S. T. Rep.
1915
.. Appellants were NOT parties 10 tho
contract. did not execute the decd. and
the deed executed by their guardian cam
not have the effect Of divesting them. as
rcmaindermen. OF their interest in their
mothers estate. The deed OF the guar
dian was unwarranted. ana IS not bind
ing on them. Hcaly Dec. vs. Rowan.
Graft. A.
g. Tho guardians transaction rs to
appellants IS not v0dlhic. but void. and
infants cannot ratfy what they could
not authorize Minors Inst, vol ], J..
SIC.
PLEADING AND PRACTICE.
Columbia Accident Insurance Cou'auy
VS.. Roekey. From the Hastings Court
of Stanton. Reversed. Opinion by Judge
Rely.
Held: The object Of the statuto-C0de,
paragraph a.9-was simply To- gi.e dcfen-
dants more definite Information Of the
character Of the plaintiff claim tnan
often appears I'm the plclciugs. and 10
give plaintiffs more information Of the
ground OF defence than is generally dis
closed by "a plea. so az TO enable the
parties TO prepare more intcllsently Tor
the trial. 10 d. one OF the most service
able statutes We have for the attainment
constitute the issue 10 Doc tried. nor was
10 intended that the claim or the ground
of defence should ho set out with the
formality OF declaration or plea, but
only that 10 should give notice to the ad-
verse party however informally. or ITS
character. where not so describe. in the
picadinge. 10 is not dcmurrarla. the proc
Ter practice being 20 move the court TO
require "a sufficient statement. Campbell
Company VS. Angus. etc.. I'll Va. i-,..
3D. The object OF the act OF l>5l-Na.
Code, paragraph e-e9-was 10 enable a de-
PENDANT both 20 make such dcfcnces to
suit at law ON snccillitics as might have
been made at common law. and also 10
recover against the plaintiff any excess
Of damages hc may have sustained, I'm
order TO settle I'm one suit al tho rights
of the parties arising under the contract.
and 10 prevent circuity of action and
multiplicity of SUITS TO enlarge the right
OF defence and not 20 impair any pre-
Vious right or take away any offences
previously permitted. Todd VS.. Summers,
% Graft. JOS: Davis vs.. Baxter. 2, Putton
VS. II. 1885, Sterling organ Company ".
House. - W. Va. NS.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Stoncburnor VS.. Roller. etc. From the
Circuit Court or Shenandoah. Reversed.
Opinion by Judge Riciy.
Held: A court Of equity has jurisdic-
ton 10 remove a cloud from The title TO
land where the complainant has no ade-
Quatc remedy at law. Virginia Coal and
Iron Company VS. Kelly. o. Va; Carroll
VS.. Brown. and Hale vs. penns heirs,
IS Graft. -3l 11.
Lut in the absence Of statutory author
fly court of equity. as a general rule.