Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-30
nIcnMoNp CAsEs DECIDED.
Opinions Handed Down I'm Three OF
These Yesterday.

These Yesterday.
Oplnions were handed down I'm three
Richmond cases yesterday. The most IN
teresting one was that delivered in j. H..
Harvey vs.. J. ". Anderson, d Co. by
Judge buchanan, in which the Court sus-
tains the deed involved, and reyerses
Iudga Lamb. OF the Chancery Court who
bsd decided that the deed was void. The
nrinclpal points decided are these:
/ THAT a provision that the surplus
should be paid by the trustee 90 the
grantor does not render the deed void
for fraud. per SCI because this provision
Is I'm accordance with the Virginia statute
on that subject
. The allowance Of 10 per cent 10 the
trustee IN the deed IS not OF itself d.
legal or improper, what is reasonable
compensation for the trustee Us 10 be de-
termined ~ the circumstances Of each
particular case. In this case 81 was not
unreasonable, and. therefore, constitutes
no objection 20 the deed.
2 The other point coutendel for hy the
parties attacking the deed was that
Moore. the grantor (who was a builder,
conveyed 10 the trustee what was due
him lipon a building ne had just COM
uleted. and II was argued by the coun-
eel attacking the deed that n the deed
was sustained the trustee would collect
This amount. and defeat the claims Of
the sub-contractor. who had afterwards
recorded their mechanics liens, and
thereby accomplish an injustice which
showed an intention 90 defraud the sub
contractor. The Court. I'm passing upon
this. say that they do not express any
opinion upon this point, because they
consider IL is a circumstance Of little or
no value I'm determining the question
whether or not the deed OF trust was
made with a fraudulent intent
ABsOLVED FROM ANY LIABILITY.
In Norris VS.. Jones. Judge Rely de-
liyered the opinion. affirming the Chan
Gerry Court of Richmond Charles b.
Jones. who died in December. lsg0 left
considerable property. but prior 90 his
death he made the request that his
brothers and sisters give their interests
iu his estate 20 their mother to enable her
10 pay of n debt on her house. All OF
the distributes united in such am agree
mcnt. including D'Orsey Jones. whose
share amounted % $3.50. Having COM
siderable balance left after paving of
the mortgage on her house, Mrs. Jones
lent her son. Dorsey Jones. am amount
= excess OF what Do had given her, Mr.
Jones was engaged in business both under
the firm name of Dorsey Jones a. Co...
and as member Of the concern of D.
d. Buusfor1. Norris A. Co.. as creditors
of Jones' brought suit. ami sought 90
subject 90 their debt the share Of Dorsey
Jones' in his brothers estate. which had
been given TO his mother After discuss
ing tine question at length. the Court holds
that the ChauCery Court did not err iu
holding that Mrs Jones in lending her
SON more money than She had received
from him. had absolvcd herself from any
liability 20 the appellants.
OTHER PROCEEDINGS.
The other opinions were as follows:
Judge James Keith. Hudson VS. Com
m0nwcalth From the County Court Of
Wythe. Reversed.
Judge Il. H. Cardwell: City Of Rich
mOnd VS.. Loving ct ais. From the Hust-
ings Court OF the city OF Richmond
Writ OF error dismissed for want Of furis-
diction. Fidelity Casualty Company VS..
Chambers. From the Circuit Court OF
Greeuesville county. Affirmed
Judge John a. Buchanan: Aiken. dc. VS.
Connolly. From tho Circuit Court OF
Fairfax county. Affirmed
Judge George ~ Harrison. Spindle. &c,
VS. Fletcher Brothers. % ais. From the
Circuit Court of Fauquler county. Re
versed
international Fraternal Alliance VS.
Marye, Auditor. Upon petition for d
mandamus. Mandamus awarded
Hurt 81 Adams vs.. Miller et ais. From
the Circuit Court OF Russell county. APP
peal and supersedeas Bond $Ie0
Hudson vs.. Commonwealth From the
Circuit Court OF Wythe county. Writ
of error awarded.
Osborne W.. Pulaski Light and Water
Company. From the Circuit Court Of
Pulaski county. Writ OF error awarded.
Bond. $50
Mercede Edwards VS.. Cannon. etc. From
the Law and Equity Court OF Nor
folk city. Writ OF error refused.
Woodson vs.. Ford. From the Law
and Equity Court Of the city Of Rich
mond Writ OF error refused
Camm's Administrator VS.. Norfolk and
Western Railroad Company. From the
Circuit Court Of Dinwiddie county Writ
of error refused.
May VS. Commonwealth From the
County Court Of Wise county. Writ Of
error refused