Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-08

unless waived by the opposite party
Central Land Company vs.. OpenThaii'
93 Virginia, 80. The object OF tne ia'
ter provisions Ia to secure tneir pro,"ps
navment IL the party whose duty IL ~
10 nav tho costs tail 20 DO so at or be-
tore The next term OF the court
after the new trial is granted. he runs
the risk OF having the order granting
a new trial rescindcd, or OF having an
execution awarded against him Tor such
coats IL however, the costs are paid
ar rendered before the order granting
tho new trial has been set aside OF
an execution awarded for them, the Cd
iect OF the latter prov sions OF the sec
ton has been accomplished, ana the CON
dition upon which the court was autho-
rized to award an execution, or TO SET
aside the order Tor ne" "i"' ""'o
ceased to exist
"The court therefore. erred In re-
scinding the order for new trial. ana
for such error its judgment must De re-
versed. and the cause remanded with
direction to II to recover the costs ten
dered. and when so recovered TO pro-
coed with cause under its order Tor
new trial"
Construction of Lien statute.
Judge Harrison fled this brief opinion
in the case OF Turnbuil ana others VS.:
Mann. from the Hastings Court OF
Petersburg:
,"rhe court Is OF opinion that the pur-
nose of section A9S of the Code was
TO afford q summary remedy for having
liens mentioned therein marked saus-
fed. where that duty has been neglect
ed. or for any cause has not peen per
formed. upon proof that the ueDt mas
been actually paid or discharged ana
was not intended to enable persons TO
have such liens marked satisfied because
liable 10 be defeated by presumption or
nuvment or because barred by the sta
tute Of limitations.
"The Judgment Of the lower court
must. therefore be reversed, and the
motion dismissed without prejudice 10 the
rights Of either party thereto
Other Supreme Court Matters.
Other decisions were these:
BY Judge Rely;
Smith " Burton. Circuit Court Prince
Edward county. Affirmed.
Sims V. Tyrer. Circuit Court OF Alexan-
dria county. Affirmed.
Mccartney VS.. Potomac. Electric COM
pany. Circuit Court Of AlexandiSa coun-
ty. Affirmed.
BY Judge Cardwell:
70 ng S. Easley. Circuit court Of Hail.
fax county. Affirmed.
BY Judge Buchanan:
Mahoney vs.. James & ais. Corporation
Court city Of Portsmouth. Decree amend
cd and affirmed.
Kelly & ais. VS. Bankers Loan and In
vestment company. Hastings Court city
of Roanoke. Appeal allowed Bond, $3.50
Kelly d ais VS.. Bankers Loan and In
vestmenC Company. Hastings Court city
of Roanoke. Appeal allowed. Bond. $3.50.
owens VS.. Owens. Circuit Court Of
Scott county. Appeal bond 5000.
Hughes Sheriff, VS.. Kelly & ais. Writ
of error to the Law ana Equity Court,
city of Richmond. Bond, 500.
Stoneburner q Richards VS.. Motley &
ais Appeal and supersedeas. Circuit
Court of Essex county. Bond 800.
Georgia Home Insurance Company VS..
Goode, &c. Circuit Court of Faucuier
county. Writ of error and supersedeas.
BOND, $1,000.
Washington. Alexandria and Mount YER
non Electric Railway vs.. Quayles & ais.
Writ of error and supersedeas. Corpora
ton Court of Alexandria. Bond, $4,000.
Fishburne & Engleby VS.. Engedove.
Hastings Court city of Roanoke. Writ Of
error and supersedeas. Bond, $500 or So
900.
Reid. trustee, VS.. King, trustee. Cor
poration Court of Roanoke. Appeal re-
fused.
Speer VS.. Stratton. Circuit Court OF
dickinson. Appeal refused.
Watkyns VS.. West Wytheville Improve
ment Company. Circuit Court of Wythe
county. Appeal refused.
Cowen, McClung Il ais. VS.. Hagan &
ais. Circuit Court of Scott county. Writ
of error refused.
Langhorne, by next friend, &c, VS..
Richmond City Railway. Writ of error
to the Circuit Court of Richmond re-
fused.
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
VS.. Few Petition to rehear. Petition re-
fused.
May VS.. Commonwealth. County Court
of Buchanan. Writ of error refused.
Fifeld and others VS.. Van Wyck's Ex-
ecutor. Further argued by Judge l.. l..
Lewis for appellants, and submitted.
Winter VS.. Southern Loan and Invest
ment Company. Argued by p. A. l..
Smith, Esq. for appellant. and Hill Car
ter, Esq, for appellee, and submitted.
Woodbridge, Traves & Co. VS.. Green.
Argued by w. w. Henry, Esq, for appel
liant.
The next cases TO be called are Fer
guson VS.. Daughtry No. 90 and City of
Petersburg VS.. Cooke, No. 81.