The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-03

violation, and can In no wise sctNc %
precedent for the determination OF the
case here.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Pierce VS.. Gryco: From the Hastings
Court OF Portsmouth. Affirmed. opinion
by buchanan, Judge.
By the terms of a lease lessor had
option TO renew for term of ten years. or
10 resume possession and pay lessee the
value of the buildings lessee was required
10 erect on the leased premises. Lessor
continued the lease for that term by al
lowing lessee to occupy the premises ana
receiving the same rent therefor. Aiter
oyn,ration Of secured ten years the party
claiming The premises, the plaintn In TINS
action asserted a claim against the les
sees assignee. the defendant lot an au-
ditlonal sum Of $500 annually, Tor periou
Of FIVE years for the use ana occup"'ioi,
Of the buildings erected upon the leaseo
PROMISES. and action was brought l" ic-
cover this sum. Defendant resists upo"
two grounds. First, that the building was
erected by lessee for the purpose OF carry
ing ON his business, and that he had
RIGHT to remove il as trade MIXTURE At
Tho expiration Of his lease and was
tbero fore. using his own and not the PLAIN
tins property. ,,,,,,,,
UeId. l The erection Of the building
was nm inducemont 10 and part OF inc
consideration OF the lease. Inc lesss,' III
consideration of his erecting the buiiuiis
and Of the rent reserved, was ehullvu "
hold the leased premises for Two ~"
Of ten wears each, unless the leSsVi ~
cised mis- option not To renew loI 'hc -,
ond term. in which event he WAS Feq ny
10 pay the lessee the then Naiuo u ~
buildlng. As the lease was coii''i'Nr" i"-
lessee
entitled the lessor had, at the expiration
90 ,bot time the right 10 the possession
90 tho leased premises, including lhe
stcre-bouse. Where the terms ~ the leaSe
r,,,,,,,, tho lessee 70 erect buildings upon
a. Iced nremises. and there is no agree
-, for their removal by the lessee ne
bae no right TO remove them Inc uoe
80 If fxtures has no application 10
rho second ground upon which deien-
d,rt relies is that he neither expressly
nor no Implication undertook 10 pay any
cher or greater amount tnah ne mas
paid. ,oo,s Il an
noars that the defendant held w
nrenises after his lease eNpireu lol n,"liS
| ivo years before any demand ""S 49,
,,ror him for the sum sued Tor DurllB
~. 80 ,or,od he Maid s275 annually, In quar-
- Entertainments. as provided for IN the
/ 80 The plaintiff was, therefore, en-,
,t.io5 IN receive. and the defendant bouhu
80 nv such sum for the use ana %
c,,,ation Of the premises as the law , M
rlied under the circumstances o. ''''
case. .o,a,t for
torn. of wears 10 hold over aiter cNIl'@
| ,tl', If his term. without any new ael
-. H.. bocornes n tenant from yea" w.
/ ,eor. and the law presumes ln' n 49,.
/ - M, unon the same terms OF III, -,
| 1oaso so far as applicable 10 ms ,,o
/ eft,atiou Minors Inst. w. 49, 90
in,nliod contract he wa ol's o,t,,led IN
peiIo' 49, -, him the performance Oh tlo
,,'.'.,,ore irnpoeed by the Original - -.
y, -, odritted that such oDhsat'o'ls
! had been discharged 'io
entitled TO recover. -,, t->fpr DYES.
NnTTGE REQUISITE go f'-ri - ',,,,.
NUM- - ohio Railroad Company
! -. administrator. FROM lIc
| 10. Court Of Lynchburs'
0n,ni6n by Harrison, Judge. 80. .ho
'l,.'lO' l,.i5ence being certined' not 'no
~ case must be considered as vi
a demurrer to evidence. ., e., oo,,n.
Iasb was a brakeman engaseu III W
! limo freight cars in the shiluhs 49,,
| tbe company. lie was caubls ,r,,o.o
ty-o cars and crushed TO ded'n' 49,
! 49,, ,,,erc drcadfully out or oidel' w
! ValS 90 badIv worn and rotten tnat
,,,tnn brought together there was sPaGe
- ort,, a few inches between theh' li
e1.,sHD,,ence of which bad condition Lash
80 Killed. Defendant insisted thal ne
| focte were open and obvious ana thaI IL
| was negligence TO attempt 10 coupe '"0
! cars by going between them
! r~bie contention not sustained by proof
/ hut IL appears that inspection was hece7-
| cary 10 discover the condition or the caiS'
| and that in the hurry incident 10 ms
| work Lash could not have observed the
danger. 49,, 80
N il further insisted that Lash had no
! ,ial o. Inc condition of cars. IN this. that
cbalk marks signifying "Out OF order
,,.era ON The sides OF each car, ana tnai
he ought 10 have been warned thereby.
There is no evidence that Lashs atteh-
lion was called to these marks. the cars
had boou I'm the yard only a few hours. DE
| was not familiar with them, and II iuAy
| appears that these marks were not III
tended to warn brakemen not 10 DISCHARGE
| duties incident 20 their employment IN
| the usual mode but were there for an
| entirely different pCrpose-vlz., 10 INFORM
the road from which they came that they
| were out Of order when received.
If warned by a fellow-brakeman, there
is no evidence that the warning was
heard. and the general conditions sur
rounding the parties Justify the conclusion
that it was not heard.
Held: The master is bound 10 use orh-
nary care in supplying and ntintainins
| safe instrumentalities for the work re-
| quired. and, failing 10 do so. & t. as
| liable 10 the servant as to a stranger.
| s. Va, 223.
II was gross negligence 10 use such cars
| without giving employees actual notice
| of their defects and the danger Of hand
| ling them The deceased was guilty OF
| no contrbutory negligence, he was not
aware Of his danger. and his life was
| lost because the company faile,. % use
ordinary care in supplying and maintain
| ing safe instrumentalties for the perform
| ance of work required
.. The deceased not having notice OF the
defective condition of the cars. it is un-
necessary to pass upon the instruction as
20 the duty of the company 10 maintain
safe and adequate machinery.
| STATE DEMANDS - INTEREST on
COSTS.
Garlani's administrator VS.. Garland.
| From the Circuit Court OF LynchbuTg.
| Reversed Opinion by Cardwell, Judge.
| MS Is sequel 10 case twice appealed
10 this court and reported in - "a. ID,
| and II Va. 1JS. IL is Il very elaborate
| opinion, OF tweuty~siN pages, dealing IN
| the main with the settlement of admins
! uation accounts. State demands. distri-
| button. and costs. only the salient points
Of the DECISION are sought TO be SUM
| married. here.
In 1862 Burr Garland qualified in Mia-
sissipp- as administrator G.. 1. a. OF sam