The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-11-19
Decision Involving The Tennessee and
Virginia Boundary Line.
MANY OTHER IMPORTANT CASES.
VIII Construed Evidence Equity fieaa
inr--rcnants In Co'nmon--confict
Of JurisdictIon--Digests OF
other Causes.

reneral rule cnJcin q mere h"n'N -.
mass But where the acts done or '",e%
cncd would be destructive OF 'ne SUI
stance Of tho estate or are ofteh repeal
81 or the injury would he irreparaple'
or whenever the remedy at law IS made
oi,ate an Injunction Is proper Also IN n
case where the trcspasscr ~ pecuhlarly
IRRESPONSIBLE The non-residence OF the
trespasscr. az in this case. Is enutieu
70 much weight in determining the pro
prlety OF granting an inJuncuoh' LOT II
would he unjust 10 turn of citizen
subjected TO aggravated trespasses anu
leave him to seek redress al Ia" III
foreign jurisdiction. Having once proper
Iv acquired Jurisdiction. q court OF equity
rm 20 prevcnt multiplicity Of suits 90
romplete Justice though 1t involve utes'
boundaries and remedies rightly pertain-
inc 20 courts of law. Anderson vs. har-
yevs heirs 10 Graf. 5S6.
The lower court awarded the injunc-
ton. and the boundary line between VII
pinla and Tennessee being pToush' -,
question a iurv was impanellod TO Try
several issues. mainly what Is 'he 'Iue
line and whether the land wheieoh t.e
,rasnasses occurred lies north or SCUM
NJ n. They found that the land hes III
VIRGINIA and that the line begins OH
the summit OF Pond Mountain. ana inhs
aue west beyond the land In controversy
on motion the court set inc Nv'u,s
inside and dissolved the Injunction holu
ing that the land lay in Iehhesse'' anu
dismissed the bill Appeal.
This court discusses eiaboratey anu
ot great length. the boundary line ana
holds that the true boundary 10 a COM
promise line beginning "on the summit
If the White Top Mountain. where the
northeast corner of the state OF Iehhes-
see terminates and follows que west
course TO the top Of the Cuniperlahu
,ro,r,atn where the southwest corner
OF the state Of Virginia terminates, tnat
1, lies midway between walker s. line
and Henderson's line. which were also
straight lines running due east and west
md upwards OF two miles apart; ana that
n was marked when run with hNe CHOPS
in the shape of diamond.
The United States Supreme Court (Nlr-
rlnIa VS. Tennessee, us L. >, 50 sus-
tained the validity of the comproiIise
line under the compact OF 1903 In inns
.,,i, ,bo sole issue. so far as res adjudicata
&C. involved is the actual location, upon
tho ground Of the compromise line OF
1902.
While directing an issue out OF chan
cery Is a matter Of discretion i'm the court
Il Is not a mere arbitrary discreloh' pu'
n must be exercised upon sound primer
,les % right and Justice. mistake IN
-
~ the action OF the court in approVlhs
or disregarding IT,. Beverly VS.. Walden
% Graft. l47: and many Virginia cases.
Whore the evidence is contradictory ana
evenly balanced. it is the practice WIN
out good cause 10 the contrary to aplue
bv the verdict. Carter vs.. campbell pI-
,ner 10: Foushee vs.. Lee. Call 2'9; step
toe VS.. Floods administrator 81 "'"'''
Will CONSTRUED.
Taylor vs.. Fanver. etc. Affirmed Opin-
.on by Judge Buchanan.
"Third. The balance l will and be-
rucath TO my sisters or their heirs equai
TO all ,..,.... -.
tiers. one sister had died before the VIII
was written, leaving children.
Held. Each sister living az his death
takes an equal share disposed Of by that
clause. and the children or heirs OF his
sisters, dead at that time. take snare
of equal value or such share as their
mother would have taken had she been
living.
FELLOW SERVANTS.
The Moore Lime Company VI. Richard
ron's Administrator Reversed. Opinion
iy Judge Buchanan.
r.. working as day laborer for the
company. received injuries, which caused
lis death.
The company's business was quarrying
limestone, &c. al Eagle Rock, and it
mad there n superintendent In general con-
troll and management. r.. mentioned In
the cause as foreman" was employed
10 head up barrels of lime, 10 keep the
time of the hands supcrntend their
work, which was 10 wheel wood 10 the
tilns. TO move ears 10 place of loading.
md 10 load them. W. one of The gang
receiving the Same pay, and doing the
tame work as the rest, usually directed
them in their work. and II was their duty
10 obey him. When the accident occurred
H. was absent. and W. was IN charge.
lie directed the gang to move two cars
10 the platform. After they had startcd.
pne car. w. leaving deceased pushing
H. went with the rest for the other.
About the time deceased got his car to
the platform the other ear which W. and
the others had started. and from which
they had removed their hands. ii being
slight down gradc-overtoOk deccdent.
The bumper struck him and inflicted fatal
injury Deceased knew they had gone
back for the ear. but w. did not warn
him Of its approach. as was frequently, II
not usually done under Ike circumstances
Deceased had been with the company
I'VE or six years. and had been warned not
20 walk behind the ears when moving
them though IL was a common practice.
evidence tended 30 show that If deceased
mad been IuSlblle Altf 'Ai WI 'itA'i NAAf
OF the bumper. he would not have been
injured. as the ends of the cars We're
nearly two feet apart when the bumpers
rame together.
Held 1. w. was not lce-principal but
n fellow servant. ana the case is con-
troled in This aspect OF IT by the de-
cision OF this court la Richmond Locomo-
tive Works vs.. Ford. q s +. r.. 5O1
where the subject IS fully discussed.
2 one Of the positive duties OF master
Is 10 adopt rules for the safety Of his
employees. whore he Is engaged IN COM
plex business. which requires such rules,
and failure to do so is such negligence
as renders him responsible for injuries re-
sulting from such failure Wood on
master and Servant. See. 4oS; Morgan
VS.. Hudson River ore and Iron Co.. 81
~. T. r.. 23i While defendant may not
have adopted such rules and published
them. Il Is not shown that there was any
thing in the nature Of the work which
made il necessary to enact rules, and lis
feilure TO do 80 was not negligence. I'M
less Il appeared that in the exercise or
reasonable care the master should have
forescen tho necessity for such rules. and
II does not so appear.
PRIORlTlES. &C.
Evans Bros vs. Roanoke Savings
rank Reversed. Opinion by Judge
.~t., .osisanf Judges buchanan and