Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-06-12
OUR HIGHEST COURT
OPfNION-DAY IN vIRGINIA's ST.
PREME TRIBUNAL.
The Running of Freight Trains ON
sunday--Tbc states Right-Qucs-
tion of Ejeetment-The Cloves
Damage Suit.
Damage Suit.


the Code. which prohibits railroad com
panies from running freight trains on
Sunday. is held not 10 be I'm conflict with
the commerce clause OF the Constitution
OF the United States. and is valid exer
else OK the police power OF the State Tor
the protection OF the morals and health Of
the people. The State has the right in
order to secure and protect the laws or
health Of its citizens. or to preserve good
order and the public morals. to legisate
for such purposes. And where IT is done
in good faith, and without discrimination
against interstate or foreign commerce, II
IS not In violation OF the commerce clause
OF the Constitution Of the United States.
although such legislation may some
times touch I'm its exercise the line sepa-
rating the respective domains of Federal
and State authority. and, to some extent,
affect interstate and foreign commerce.
Jones VS. Murphy. From the Chanccry
Court Of the city of Richmond. Jones
and Murphy entered into an agreement
November 2. 1889 that each would use
his best endeavors 20 sell certain mining
properties and lands belonging to the es-
tate of the late 4. Stearns, in Chesterfield
county which had been put upon the
market, each party 10 receive one third
of the profits realized after payment OF
travelling expenses, &c. and the remaining
third TO 20 to who held options on the
lands. Murphy got ID. 10 examine the
lands with him, and introduced ID. 10
j., whereupon negotiations began, which
resulted In a sale OF eight parcels Of the
Stearns land 10 ID. on May s. 1890, where
by net profit Of 81 .693.5 was realized
and which was by ]. and w equally di-
vided between themselves, the claim of
NJ. TO one third thereof being ignored.
NJ. files his bill of complaint against j.
and w. for settlement Of the accounts
between the parties TO the agreement, and
for the recovery Of his share Of the pro-
fits realized on the sales to D.. alleging
that while w. did not sign the agree
ment, he not only knew Of and consented
thereto. but encouraged NJ. and j. 10 act
Hereunder. and that J. and w. had
determined to forfeit and confscate com
plainants' interest in these profits, and
had taken portion thereof and invested
ii in other lands OF in options thereon
etc. J. and W. demurred to the bill, on
the ground that il did not make a case
for equity jurisdiction. vt was held that
the demurrer was property overruled. as
the bin showed that the agreement under
which the parties had acted made them
partners; that there were partnership ac-
counts between the parties, which were
properly 10 be stated and settled by a
court of equity, and that the remedy
of the complainant was not complete at
law. w. after all the evidence In the case
was taken, and a report of the commits
sioners in favor of NJ. was made TO the
court. paid TO NJ. that portion Of the pro-
fits realized In the transaction with D.,
received by W., and 10 which NJ. was en-
titled. but j. appealed from the decree
OF the lower court requiring him to pay
NJ. that portion of the profits received
by him i'm this transaction, and claimed
sby M amounting to S3.6i55s with in
terest and costs, the contention Of j. be-
ing that NJ had abandoned the agree
ment, and left Virginia. or had forfeited
his interest by failing when required so
10 do TO put up lis share of certain
moneys needed 10 effectuate the sale made
TO ID. Ii was also held that the evidence.
consisting almost entirely Of "A cor
respondence between j. and NJ. and the
dispositions of the parties did not sustain
Us contention. but fully justified the de-
cree appealed from.
EJECTMENT CASE.
Buntin and wife VS.. City of Danville.
From the Corporation Court of Danville.
This was a suit I'm eiectment to recover
narrow strip OF land. The Plaintiffs
claimed II through long chain OF title,
il was part of a road that years ago
led into the town and had been dedicated
by the owner of the soil as "a highway.
and. upon extension of the corporate
limits of the town. had become a part Of
the street On the other hand, the plain
tiffs claimed that IT was not part of
the road. and relied upon certain OBJ
structions 10 It's free use to refute the
contention OF the dedication.
L., tn. atrax. aruxr =
not within the boundaries covered by the
title of the plaintiffs, but was a part of
the old public road
2. That the road had been dedi-
Gated to the public i'm valid manner by
the original owner Of the land. and that
no subsequent obstruction, or encroach-
ment could impair the right of the public
10 its use. unless it was abandoned by the
public or by the proper authority.
g. That a dedication may be express or
implied, and may be implied from long
use by the public.
A. That n dedication is not within the
statute of frauds. but may be verbal de-
claration as well as by deed or other
writing
Camp and Others VS. Barnes etc. From
the Circuit Court OF Nansemond county.
Writ of error refused.
Weaver VS.. Eastern Building and Loan
N.
Of Bueua vista. Appeal granted; bond,
$50.
Merchants Bank of Danville VS.. Ballou
and others From the Circuit Court Of
Halifax county. Appeal and supersedeas;
bond, $500
THE CLOVES CASE.
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
VS.. Cloves. This IS an action of tres
pass on the case against the Chesapeake
aud Ohio Railway Company. 1t appears
that on the 2lst of April 1885. Cloves.
being a passenger upon a train from Old
Point to Richmond, was invited by the
conductor to pass into another car, in
order to procure a seat. This ne under
took TO do. and, upon reaching the plat
form, the train lurched so as 10 throw
him of, inhicting serious injuries upon
him The court here decides that pas
senger who has paid his fare is entitled
20 seat and that It is not negligence
on his part to pass from one car 10 an
other while the train IS in motion In
order TO find a seat, especially where this
Is done at the invitation OF the conductor.
Among other errors assigned was that the
Circuit Court instructed the jury that IL
was negligence on the part Of the rail-
road to run at an unusually rapid rate
of speed" The court here SAYS that sit
cannot be said as a matter of law that
the mere rate OF speed is negligence al
though II may be unusual. IL is true that
negligence - a relative term; that what
may be negligence under one condition OF
facts would not only not be negligence.
but the highest prudence under different
condition OF facts. The question for the
Jury always Is. Was the act taken in con.
necton with all OF Its attending circum-
atances Negligent The rate Of speed may
'be dangerous. taken IN connection with
other circumstances, as, for instance, the