Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-04-16
COURT OF APPEALS

,, The most important case decided by
the Court of Appeals yesterday was
that of Fi6eld and others vs. Van
Wyck, executor, and others. The de-
cision in this case affects requests to
churches. The case went from the
Chancery Court Of Norfolk by which the
provisions of the will of the late Mrs.
Lenore M. Van Wyck were construed.
Mrs. Van Wyck was from New York,
but at the time of her death in Decem-
Der, 1880, resided in Norfolk. Her es-
tate consisted chiefly of property in
those two cities. By the provisions OF
the will, after making a number of be-
quests, the testatrix left the residue OF
her property, amounting to about
$4,000, to trustees for the bene.
fit of the denomination known
as New Jerusalem Church, Swe.
denborgian, "to be used as they deem
ed BEST" The will directed the real es-
tate to be sold and should any of the
legatees contest the will they should
forfeit their requests. The Chancery
Court of Norfolk held that the bequest
to the New Jerusalem Church was
valid. The Court of Appeals reversed
the lower court, Judge Buchanan de-
livering the opinion. The decision OF
the appellate court turns upon the
clause of the residuary bequest "for
the benefit of the New Jerusalem
Church. as they, the trustees, shall
deem best" The question, Judge
Buchanan says, Is whether the trust is
for the benefit of all of the members of
that church, wheresoever they may be,
in this or in other countries, or is it linn
tied to those in the United States or in
Norfolk or New York. The purposes OF
the trust, the opinion continues, are
wholly indefinite and the discretion
vested in the trustees unlimited, except
that the funds must be used for the
benefit of the New Jerusalem Church.
Another point decided is that the clause
that legatees who contest the will would
forfeit their requests is void.
Another case decided yesterday OF
special interest to cities was that OF
! Terry against the city of Richmond, in
which the decree of the Law and
Equity Court in the defendants favor
is affirmed. The case involved the
question of a municipalities liability
for damage to property occasioned by
negligence or faulty construction of a
roadway on street or tunnel under
\ the street. Terry's property, like that
of number of other persons, was
wrecked by the caving in of the tunnel
OF the Richmond and Chesapeake Rail
road Company under Eighth street.
The city required an indemnity bond
for the protection of its interests and
those of its citizens. The supreme
court decided that the city is not liable,
as in granting the privilege for the tun-
mel it exercised public or govern
mental power, and that the law ex-
empts it from responsibility for an in
jury resulting from the negligence or
wrongful act of the railway company.
Judge Harrison wrote the opinion in
the case of Walker and others vs.. Ty-
Ter, appealed from the Law and Equity
Court of Richmond. Henderson Walk
er built house in that city in 1855 and
proposed to the appellee that if she
woul contribute toward the expenses
of its building she should have an in.
terest proportional to her contribu-
ton. The agreement was never placed
in writing. Alter Walkers death the
appellee brought suit against the estate
to enforce the payment of her claim.
a commissioner allowed her $500 with
interest. An exception to this finding
was overruled and the report confirm
ed. The court is of the opinion that the
relation of the appellee to the estate of
Walker was that of general creditor
with q claim for money loaned or ex-
pended by her for him, and resting on
a verbal contract in 1888, and the statu
tory period having elapsed since the
right of action accrued without suit be-
ing brought to enforce payment the
claim is clearly barred. The decree OF
the lower court is reversed.
This is the summary of the other
cases before the court.
The Manly Manufacturing Company
Vs. Broaddus s. Parks, Circuit Court of
Page county; reversed.
Stringfellow vs. Wise, Circuit Court
of Culpeper county; affirmed.
Morris VS.. Dean and others, Circuit
Court of Greene county reversed,
Richmond and Manchester Railway
Company vs.. Moore's administrator !;
petition to rehear refused
Stonebraker and Hutchins vs.. Hicks
and others; further argued and sub
mitted
Groner, &c, VS.. Foster; argued and
continued until to-day
The next cases to be called will be
Grubbs vs.. National Maturity Union
Central Life Insurance Company.
After the conclusion of the case at
| bar only three mora nacaa will be-