The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-11
SUPREME COURT CASES.
OPINIONS HANDED
DOM ar UrTHEi mr..
Decisions Involving bankruptcy, Prcsnm-
tion Burden, MifJ"'ndo'' 'h""'c'y
Pleading, and statute Of Frauds.

Gary. committee vs.. Abingdon Pub.
Co Affirmed. opinion by Judge Keith
president.
The first count In the declaration is for
damages upon a contract. the second
count for damages FOR a tort Demurrer
10 declaration and each count sustalncd
with leave 10 amend. Same as 10 amend
ID declaration and on second amended de-
slaraiion demurrer sustained and 1udg-
mont for defendant. ana writ Of error
Held: Causes Of action In tort CANNOT
he Joined with causes arising out OF con-
tract thus assumpsit cannot be joined
with trOvcr and conversion nor debt with
lrcspaSs vi Ell arms. And, however
perfect thu counts may be respectively in
themselves. the declaration viii be bad
On general demurrer though not on mo-
tion in arrest Of judgment, or on q writ
pf error unless general demurrer has
been entered and ovcrruicd. Without
che general demurrer the verdict ana
judgment would be- protected by the sta
tute OF jcofails 4 Minors lnsts Part J.,
SOC 400 PERIL VS.. Brcwiss Admir-. .
Graft. 5el
The tiial count properly sustained the
demurrer and its judgment should have
been final without permitting plaintiff to
amend OF this plaintiff cannot complain
however. and judgment Is affirmed.
BANKRUPTCY. PRESUMPTION, BUR
DEN.
Harmon vs. Stcarns. Reversed. Opin-
ion by Judge Keith. president
Eiectmcnt 10 recover land. jury waived.
ALI matters Of law and fact submitted 10
the court and judgment for plaintiff.
Title deduccd from n grant 10 Morris in
l7g4 by the Governor Of Virginia. and APP
parcntly a complete chain from the Com
mowealth to defendant In error Exccp-
lions alleged defects as follows:
Morris was adiudcated a bankrupt IN
1901 I'm the United States District court
FOR the PENNSYLVANIA district and pro-
ccefings are still OF record. Assignees IN
bankruptcy were selected ana All the
property of Morris was conveyed 10 thom
in trust for his creditors. Nothing was
over done by the assigneos 10 execute the
trust Morris died i'm 1904 In 1875 Henry
Morris filed his petition in The District
court. alleging the bankruptcy proceed
ings against his conveyance TO the as
signecs for benefit of creditors. the neg
lect Of the assets by both ana their con-
seuuent waste without boneht 10 lhe
creditors and praying that the commission
in bankruptcy be vacated ana supti%tn'u
which was done accordingly. and II IS l"
he presumed the order of vacation mas
been accepted and acquicsced IN by an
concerned. The attempt here IS 10 i'm
peach this decree or ordc~ in collateral
proceeding nearly seventy years AFTER
was entered. ~
in bankruptcy constituting as 'ht! ~" D.
entire and connected suit from Inc hhhS
of the petition 10 the final settlement was
admissible evidence and in the absence
Of ANYTHING to the contrary lusuhed the
court I'm disreearding the adjudication OF
The hankruptcv OF Morris so far as releu
ANON 10 defeat the title of the deVisees
,nder his will Saldusky vs.. Nauonal
Bank p Wall G'
objection is taken TO a deed. because
I, is a technical release. and the grantor
not appearing TO have been IN possession
her deed could not pass title.
Held. As TO the first objection. Sec.
o;2q Of the Code Is conclusive against u.
Ii appears from the will Of Morris
that in lsoi the grlntor was o. married
woman and IL is conceded that ine ne'u
of 1851 Is not sufficient TO convey the
lands az "a married woman: but thc deed
rccites that at its date grantor WAS
widow. While there arises no presump-
fion of her husbands death from the lapse
OF time vet as 10 far exceeds his eNpec-
tation Of life the quantum of proof 10
establish his death is diminished. The re-
cital OF widowhood In the deed necessarily
implies the death of her husband; is MADE
the facts. has remained unchallensed 10y
proof. though susceptible az easy con-
tradiction. and comes within the class OF
declarations generally admitted 10y the
courts. Gaines vs.. Stiles. Il Peters. 322,
Deerv. lessee. VS. GRAY. =. Wall. %, Fulk-
erson vs.. Holmes. III l.. S. 3'9.
g. Where land has been forfeited for
non-paymcnt of taxes. and the taxes are
subsequently paid i'm redemption of the
lr he
wealth. "A jury would Doe warranted in I'M
ferring under the circumstances that pay
mcnt was made by or for some one hay
ing the right TO redeem i'm the absence
OF anything 10 the contrary.
T. The burden of proof was on the
plaintiff TO show that the land for which
he sued was within the boundaries of his
title papers. and not within the rescrva-
fions therein contained. and not on the
defendant 10 show that it was within the
reservations. Reusens rs. Lawson. 81 Va.
22G: and FOR this error judgment is re-
versed.
CHANCERY PLEADING.
Reader &c. vs.. Bristol Land Company.
and Bishop. &c. vs.. same. Reversed.
Opinion 10y Judge Rely.
Held. Where large number of persons
have been. by identical representations
frauduintly induced TO become subscrib-
erS 10 a company. fncN may unite IN one
bill. praying for the cancellation of their
subscriptions and make the company
and It's officers and agents. through whom
the fraudulent representations were
made. defendants. Brown vs.. Bedford
City l.. d /. Co. 81 Va. 81 3G: Bosher
VS.. Richmond and Harrisonburg L. CO..
81 Va. 49,
The fraud charged. the injury sustain
ed. the means 10y which IL was accom-
plished and the relief sought are ldenti-
cal TO all Fraud is the graVamcn. An
have common interest centcring I'm this
point. All are alike affected 10y IL.
The trial court erred I'm sustaining the
demurrer TO the bill i'm each case.
STATUTE AND FRAUDS.
Boyd. &c. VS. Cleehorn &c. Affirmed
Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Held Although appellate cour; may not
concur in the reasons assigned ny trial
court yet n the decree appear TO Dee a
proper one for other reasons II will he
affirmed Newell vs.. Wood. ! Munf. 3f5
This suit was 10 enforce specific per-
Torrance OF two paral agreements for the
sale OF land. and the evidence rs nOd of
the clear and convincing character that
IL necessary. consisting chiefly of alleged
verbal declarations and admissions made
many years ago by "a person now dead
which cannot now be cOntradictcd or cX-
planned and the lightcst mistake or fall
ure Of recollection might totally alter
their effect
?. Equity viii always lend It's aid to de
feat a fraud Notwithstanding the statute
a..