The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-04-02
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.
The Railway Company Must Pay for the
Accident at Forest Hill Park.
CASE AGAINST CHESAPEAKE & OHIO,
In which the Decision oftho Lower Court
Is Reversed by Judge Buchanan-Fraud.
ulent Assignment-C Cloud on Title.
Digests OF tho Opinions.

The following opinions we're handed
down by the Supreme Court OF Appeals
yesterday:
Richmond and Manchester Railway
Company VS.. Moore's administrator. Az
frmed. opinion by Judge Harrison.
This company. owning Forest Hill Park.
and making it an attartciye place of pub
lie resort, in order to induce travel on its
line. employed Blum to make balloon
ascensions therefrom, and advertised the
same, thus extending an Invitation to the
public to visit its premises and witness
the ascensions. y heavy pole. used in
connection with the entertainment. fell
upon a lad eight years old, and death en-
sued The evidence shows that the
croWl-grOwn people and children-knew
nothing OF the danger from the falling
poles which they supposed were fixed and
stationary, and crowded around them
while the imitation was going on. Blum
did make some effort 10 clear a way for
the first pole TO fall. as the balloon was
about ready: but the signal Look OUT.
was taken to mean that the ascension
was about to begin, and created much
commotion, and great efforts for the best
points OF view. Then 1t was that the
pole fell and killed young Moore.
Held. While n person IS under no obliga-
ton to keep his premises IN safe condi-
ton as 10 trespassers. yet when he, e1-
presslv or by implication. invites people
ON them. whether for business or other
purposes he must exercise ordinary care
and prudence to render the premises
reasonably safe. Cooley on Torts. Ds;
Boswell on Personal lnjs., Secs. s., 10;
Nichols Admir-. VS.. w. o. & w. r. K. c.,
SO Va. 90.
2. The demurrer was properly overruled,
the declaration stating a good cause OF
action. continuing every requisite allega-
ton. and 50 fully setting forth the facts
which constituted the cause or action
that they could be easily understood by
defendant. jury and court. 1t was UNI
/ necessary TO set out how the lad won't 10
| the mark. whether he walked or went as
! a passenger over the cOmpany'S nne, or
| otherwise The grievance IS the Negligent
| failure Of the company 10 protest 'he
| deceased from danger while on It's prem
| ises by invitation. and it is fully set cut
! in the declaration.
! 3. Even though Blum had been an ihue
! pendent contractor, the company "oulu
| sim he liable. The owner Of premises
I
/ reason of the contract, from seeing that
! due care is used to protect persons com
| ing upon them by the owners invitation
curtis vs.. Kiery, 15S Mass, 123; BioD vs.
! \. & ". r. r. Co., 81 Va, III.
] FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT /.
Shields Nc. vs.. Mahoncy. sc. Reversed
opinion by Judge Keith, president:
Nahonov obtained an execution against
Shields. and placed same in hahIs VI
the proper officer h De levied. ana thele-
bv ACQUIRED a lien Under section 5oyl OF me
Code. and according % its terms. Ha',ns
ACQUIRES the lien. he summoned Shlelus
before n commissioner in chanccry as per
| code section 1903. II appeared that
Shields held WIS note for $3.50. hypothe-
Gated with the bank. however, TO secure
big note for 5000. Shields, who was IN
solvent, was then indebted 10 ID. * Co.
$50 and pending the proceedings before
| the commissioner proposed that they pay
his note 20 the bank. credit him By the
debt due them. pay him the balance, ana
! take an assignment OF the note. which
| trev promptly dil: and now hold the note
| Of w. as assignees or endorsers Tor val
liable consideration without notice OF the
lien Of NJ NJ. thereupon filed a bill set
| ting out these facts. and asking that the
transaction between d. & Co and Shields
]
AID the decree below held II TO be a
/ fraudulent transaction.
Held. in order 20 invalidate the as
/ signment there must have been an intent
by Shields 10 hinder. delay. etc. creditors.
which intent must have been participated
In or known to his assignee. Shields IN
solvency and the knowledge Of II by ID. X
Co. would be proper evidence to be con-
/ sidered I'm connection with other incuipa-
tory circumstances 10 fasten the imputa-
ton Of fraud OIL the transaction: but
standing alone rs in the record. they
are wholly insufficient 20 warrant sucn
a conclusion. II would be hard and OPP
! pressive 10 debtor and creditor alike 10
hold that the deb,or's insolvency forbade
all dealing with him lest & be annulled
as fraudulent. Industry and business
| capacity Of debtors are elements Of value
to their creditors OF which they cannot
be justly deprived by law. II insolvency
rci der q debtor Incapable OF contracting
without suspicion falling upon those who
deal with him. his energies are impaired
and his earning power diminished II not
destroyed. In times OF depression and
Dis aster such n rule. n enforced, would
lead 10 utter stag1ation and ruin. Stur-
| eos Us. Ciowninshield. 4 Wheat. 1885, Har-
vev VS.. Anderson. q. S. f. r.. 9l4
There being no evidence Of misconduct
I'm the transaction by d. & Co. nor any
tending TO short no-ice to them or the
lien Of NJ. their tile 10 the note has not
been successfully imDeached.
CLOUD ON TITLE.
sulphur Mines Company VS.. Boswell
and ais. Reversed. Opinion by Judge
| RELY.
Boswell etc. bought from the heir OF
Robert S. Ellis all the pyrites or sui
phur vein on a tract in Louisa, and fifty
yards in width Of the surface OF the land
so located rs to include said vein, agree
ing to pay therefor $500 January, 1892.
and the like sum within a year. The
| vendors agreed. upon receipt Of first pay
| ment. TO make a good and perfect title
in fee simple. taking a decd OF trust on
| the property to secure last payment.
The Circuit Court had decreed the sale
CT the property heretofore. and ratified
and confirmed this sale, and appointed a
| commissioner TO convey. etc. Meantime
the vendees learned that the Sulphur
| Mines Company disputed the right or the
| Ellis heirs 10 the mineral vein. and also
| 10 the surface strip sold with il. and did
| not make their first payment but fled 4
| bill against their vendors and the Sui
| phur Mines Company and prayed the
court 10 remove the cloud upon the IL
tie.
| The Ellis heirs answered. denying any
| ,forI. tt,fo a., .ra gnfpb.,r MI. Tor,-