Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-12


mars, general offices. etc. AZ portsrnoutb
III accordance with the terms OF the
s'oei.eht between the old company and
Ivy, under which the city subscribed
" S'yO'VW worth OF the bonds OF the
eo"PoHS' The Atlantic and Danville
vas incorporated under an act OF the
s'sia'ure' approved April 81 1852. and
one charter was several times amended.
ne charter prescribed that the terminus
OF the road should be somewhere upon
me Ellzaoeth river either in or near
NortVIK' or In or near Portsmouth. The
iodu was putt 10 Portsmouth, and the
~ iiinaIs located upon the premises Of
lne Seaboard Cotton Press Company.
The general offices. roundhouses etc
were also located in Portsmouth. and the
arrangement appeared to have been adj
Nahtaseous TO the city OF Portsmouth but
not to the company.
IN January, 1891, y. Newgass & Co
hled a motion for the sale Of the Atlantic
ana DanVille, in order to satisfy a iudg-
ment obtained by them against the com
pany Other creditors Joined i'm this.
ana this firm and O. II. Ednger became
the purchasers. Prior to this time the
company had gone into the hands Of
Alfred p Thorn and Charles 3. Crom-
Well receivers. Mr.. Cromwell having
dled when the purchase took place. Mr.
Ihom was continued in charge of the
property; but as the company had lost
much money by having its terminus in
Portsmouth, it was removed to West
Noriolk. Hence, the application for a
writ Of mandamus
THE FACILITIES INADEQUATE.
The opinion goes on to say that after
the installation of the terminus at Ports
mouth. it became apparent that the ia
cilties there were altogether inadequate
for the transaction of the companys
business; and IN the opinion of the Of
hcials of the road, entaied an outlay
over and above what was necessary to
handle the same business at West Nor
folk, Of about $4,000 annually. The opin-
ion refers to the claims against the
company at the time Of the sale. and
states that the stockholders only re-
ceived 3 per cent. upon their stock, ar~
then says:
eve are Of opinion that the contract
entered into between the Atlantic and
Danville Railway Company and the city
Of Portsmouth is not binding upon the
present company All contracts of the
old company which did not constitute
liens, and all liens which were subor-
dinate to the mortgage, which was exc
cuted September Z. 1887, to the Mercantile
Trust Company, as trustee, cease to have
any binding force or obligation upon tha
purchaser at a sale under that mort
gage; but such purchaser takes the pro-
perty free Of and discharged from all
such liens and contracts. 1t it were
otherwise, it would, in the language of
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
put an end to purchases of railroads.. "
number of authorities bearing out
this view are quoted from, and Judge
Harrison goes on to say:
In entering into a transaction of so
much consequence with an insolvent cor
poration unable TO comply with it's en-
gagements the city of Portsmouth may
have been unwise imprudent, or unfor-
tunate; but, perhaps has no greater
right TO complain than the bondholders,
who must content themselves with 8 per
cent. upon their demands
IN so far therefore, as the right Of
the petitioners to a mandamus is sup
posed to flow from any contract entered
into between the city Of Portsmouth and
the old company, known as the Atlantic
and Danvlle Railroad Company, it must
be denied"
The opinion further holds that under
the charter of the company Il is only
required that 1t shall have its terminus
upon the Elizabeth in or near the city
of Norfolk, or in or near the city of
The petition for a writ of mandamus is
refused.
What Is n Fraudulent Transaction.
The case of Ferguson & Co. and others
against Daughtrey and others was
decided yesterday, Judge Rely handing
down the opinion. This controversy came
up from the Circuit Court of Nanse-
mond county, in which the plaintiffs,
who are creditors of the late mercan-
tile firm of Daughtrey g. Hines filed
their bill to impeach and have de-
clared fraudulent three deeds OF con-
Veyance made by her and her husband
to Eugenia A. Blacknall. The circum-
stances surrounding the transaction were
that the husband of Mrs. Daugh-
trey. Just prior TO the filing Of a deed of
assignment by Daughtrey 81 Hines, went
TO Atlanta and sold to Mrs. Blacknall,
sister of Mrs Daughtrey, certain real
estate in Suffolk. Va, for a consideration
Of 5000 in round numbers. 1t was shown
that no money changed hands by
the transaction, and that the note Of
Mrs. Blacknall for $500 was turned over
by Mrs. Daughtrey to her husband to be
used as he chose TO use 1t, and that IL
was not applied to the payment of any
debts.
The court, in its opinion, held that Mr..
trip to Atlanta to sell the
when there was ready home
market. was a suspicious circumstance,
and that the transaction was irregular.
A number of authorities were cited from,
and the court in its conclusion, says:
Right and justice required that the |
prantor should devote the residue Of her |
property. after the satisfaction of the !
liens thereon, to the payment OF her !
other debts. This was not done. me |
erantor has not paid anything for the !
nronertv. The result OF our determine
Iion Of The case is to place the parties In |
me same situation as If the conveyance |
,ad never been made and TO subject the |
,ronortv TO the payment OF the creditors
Of the grantor 60. -.
.eThe decree OF the Circuit Court must
,e reversed. and a decree entered vacat-
INC the deeds referred TO and subjecting |
ne nroperty therein conveyed TO the pay
0ao,t of the debts of the plaintiffs, for |
,,bich they are entitled TO lien on the |
'ronertv from the time of filing their /
rrl in accordance with the decision or 1
sc court In Wallace's Administrator |
n al. against Treakle ct AL u Graft
49,"
other supreme Court Matters
mutual Fire Insurance Company OF |