Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-20

dHollernn VS.. Meisel. 81 Va. 39s; same
case. Of Va. Ils) For this reason the
verdict should have been set aside.
3. The question as to The non.paymsnt
OF a, costs 81 0e &c c.a s Land company VS.
bauit. 81 Va. %. &. 4. r.. 40s.
PLEADING. INSURANCE POLICY.
Grubbs VS.. National j. Maturity Insu-
Central I. Insurance Company. Re-
| versed. Opinion by Cardwell, j.
Actions OF assumpsit were brought on
two Insurance. policies oyer was Gravel ar.
sustained on tho ground that the policies
were soaed instruments, ana, therefore,
assumpsit would not lie: AT the lower
pressed the name OF the Company is
| suing IL. and the word c'SealD, and each
| concludes lin witness whereof" etc, Uhe
| company, has by It's president and secre.
! tary, signed and delivered this contraSt.
| There is nothing IN either policy to mil
| cate that the seal of the company was
| affixed or authorized to be affixed thereto,
b. the officers signing Tor II. The decia-
rations do not allege sealed instruments.
| but only the contract. the death OF the
! assured and fu.flment Of conditions.
Held; The right TO crave oyer as a
| general ruic. applies only to deeds and
! letters of administration: and only to
| and intrinsic operation Danghorne VS..
| Richmond Railway Co.. 81 Va, 3s2) But.
| Ii the right to oyer be conceded the ques-
ton whether or not these were sealed in
struments, intended and issued as such,
| is one OF fact 10 be presented BY proper
| motion or plea, since the declarations did
not aver sealed instruments. 1t Is set
/ tied In the United States that a corpora
| ton may make contract without the
! use OF a seal in all cases In which an
| individual may. q Morowetz on Pr. Corp.
Sec 1855; Weeks " Esler. IS Hun. oiS,
| that the seal is the seal OF the corpora
| ton, and was affixed by its authority, and
that IL was the intention Of the parties
/ to the instrument that It should be a
I sealed instrument, II order to have any
effect upon its apparent character ali OF
/ which are matters OF proof. jackson, etc.
/ VS.. Meyers Brothers, - Md, 452, Met l..
/ ms. Co. VS.. Anderson. ~ Nd. S75). A
/ motion may be maintained. under section
! 32ll Of the Code, for judgment for money
! due on policy, and the notice Of the
motion takes the place OF both the writ
/ and declaration. (MOratock ms. Co. VS..
Pankey, 81 Va. 25s.)
PLEADING. oYsTER-GROUN
! West VS.. Adams Reversed. Opinion by
| Buchanan, J.
Summons to recover possession OF an
| interest in land. when was the separate
/ estate OF female pldintlH ana husband
| united for conformity" Husband WAS
I an improper party. but under Acts lS93-'5i,
| page 4S9, the court should haze directed
/ the action TO aoate as TO the husband,
| and proceed as IL there had been no such
I misjoinder. IL did not err In refusing TO
, cuash the summons. but ought 10 have
| abatcG the action as TO husband. IL did
| not do this by order, but as the husband
! does not appear afterwards to have been
| treated as party 10 the record ana the
verdict and judgment are in the name OF
| the VIE alone. the subsequent proceed
ings in her name only was equivalent 10
J Diminishing the suit as to him. norfolk
I and Western Railroad Company vs.
! Dougherty, 81 Va, page S75.
/ This was an action Of unlawful detainer
| 10 recover possession OF oyster-grounds
The Code, section 237, prescribes the me-
thods OF securing such grounds. which
were in nowise complied with by plaintiff,
and so the judgment must be reversed.
FELLOW sERVANTs.
Richmond LocomotiveWo vs.. Ford.
| Reversed Opinion by Buchanan, J.
Held: II IS not necessary to aver in
I what capacity plaintiff was on the prem
I ises when injured. and such ayerment
? Is unnecessary where declaration distinct
/ ly sets forth when, where, and in what
/ manner. and under what circumstance
plaintiff was injured by the default, negli-
! gence. and improper conduct OF defend
ants servants, and demurrer was properly
overruled. Jones vs.. Old Dominion Cot
ton Mil. SO Va, no. li7, and l4S.
2. \ witness Of sufficient knowledge may
| testify as to the general practice or ma
/ chine-shops in doing similar work, ana
Z the comparative safety a. different me-
thods. but it is not competent 70 show
I that the different method OF another shop
las the Chesapeake and ohio is better
/ than that Of the defendant. Even the
sklful and experienced will often differ
4 I'm their choice OF methods. l Baily on
| Pers mi. section lH.
3 A trial court viii not be overruled for
allowing a witness 20 testify as an eN-
pert. unless IL appear clearly that he was
largely in the discretion Of the trial court.
Perkins VS.. Stickney, 1872 Mass, A1; l
| Greenl.. section 40. Note:
1t was error TO allow a witness to tes-
| tify that he quit the service of defendant
| after plaintiff was injured. Liability was
| 10 be determined from what occurred be-
| fore and at the time OF the accident:
| What happened afterwards immaieriai
i, and irrelevant.
4. The fact that the foreman or leader
| of the laborers occupied n higher posi-
I ton does not constitute him the repre-
| sentative or vice-princpal OF the defend
| ant The mere fact that one servant Is
! superior in authority to another does not
! change his relation Of fellow-serVant UNI
/, less his superiority places him in the cate
| CORY Of vice-principal. Norfolk and West
| ern Railroad Company VS.. Nuckols, 81
| Va. 1893. In that case the question OF the
| masters duty and liability was careluiiy
| considered Where there are thousand
employed IL IS necessary that there be a
! leader boss, or foreman selected, anS
| every laborcr must have it In conieinpia'
| ton The foreman stands 20 him In tha
respect in the precise position OF his othe
= fellow-servants. OBricn vs.. Am. Drede
/ ing Company, So y. j., 29l; Central Raj
! road Company We. Kugan. $50 L. >, ZoJ'
I Northern Pacific Railroad Company vs..
Peterson. 100 L. s., 340
5. 1t is the duty Of the master TO inform
an inexperienced servant OF dangers orii-
| narily incident 10 the service, but ms
rule applies only where the danger is
known. or ought 10 be known. TO the
master. and OF which the servant r. igno-
rant. and which he cannot reasonably pes
! expected 20 discover by the exercise OF
ordinary care Rooney VS.. Sewail, &C.