Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-02

| on HdNiB the genuine.
IDEAS was obtained from one Of the judges
! Of the Court Of Appeals.
THE DECREE WAS ERRONEOUS
Judge Keith's opinion starts out by
saying that the decree was erroneous.
In order 10 lnvaldate the assignment Of
| the note. there must have been an in
tent upon the part of Shields 10 him
der, delay, and defraud his creditors,
and that intent must have been partci-
pated in or known by Dilworth & Co.
Shieldss insolvency was known 10 this
firm. but. says the opinion. 1T would be
harsh and oppressive alike upon the
debtor and the creditor TO hold that the
formers insolvency forbade an dealings
and intercourse with him upon pain Of
having transactions to which he might
be a party annulled as fraudulent. 1t
has been held that the industry and
business capacity Of the debtor were
elements of value TO his creditors. Of
which they could not by law be justly
deprived"
Authorities cited to uphold this view
are Judge Marshall. in Sturgess VS..
Crownishield. Wheat. 19S. &c.
The decision further says: 'If the
debtors Insolvency renders him incapa-
bic Of contracting without subjecting
those who deal with him TO question and
suspicion. his energies, are impaired,
and his earning power diminished, If
not destroyed. In times Of disaster and
depression, which at intervals befall all
communities. such a rule. If enforced.
would lead TO utter stagnation and ruin"
The opinion, after stating that the
title Of Dilworth q Co. TO the note in
controversy had not been successfully
impeached. reversed the decree of the
Circuit Court Of the city Of Norfolk
suit Over n Mineral Vein.
Judge Rely handed down the opinion
in the case of the sulphur Mines Com
pany, of Virginia, against Boswell. Bow
man & Shuman, and others. from the
Circuit Court Of Louisa county. which
was reversed. The bin shows that the
real object of this controversy was not
to remove a cloud upon the title by the
cancellation of some instrument or pro-
ceedng constituting the alleged cloud,
which was the ground Of the equitable
jurisdiction sought to be invoked, but
was an effort on the part Of the COM
plainants 10 compel the sulphur Mines
Company and the Ellis heirs to litigate
their respective claims to the property
and have a court Of equity decide to
which of them the pyrites or sulphur
vein. i'm question, belonged and estab-
lish the true boundary line between the
two parcels of the original tract of land
of 1Oi Ia acres so that the complainants
might not incur any risk in paying for
the property i'm accordance with the
terms of their purchase. for so far as the
mineral vein was concerned. there was
nothing TO be cancelled or removed.
The opinion goes on TO say: THE com
claimants and the Ellis heirs, under whom
they claim. rely for their title 10
the mineral vein upon the deed from
Ellis. Hunter & Bib to the Fork Run
Mining Company 1t is their source of
Title They do not claim that it is in
correct in any respect or that its pur-
port or effect Is any wise different from
what was intended by il. They cannot,
therefore. ask to have II or any part of
II cancelled and there is nothing in the
Iced from Ellis. Hunter d Bib to Thomas
Maybury under the Sulphur Mines Com
pany's claims in conflict with it. So that
with respect TO the mineral vein. 1t is
simply a question OF the construction of
the two deeds involved"
The opinion further says: "The BILL
when analysed. shows that though filed
under the pretence of removing a cloud
upon the title TO the property bought
by the compliments. it is in reality a
suit 10 try the title between their vendors
and the Sulphur Mines Company and to
establish the boundary between them"
After quoting from some authorities
touching the point, the opinion says:
jurisdiction IN equity cannot be MAIN
aimed Of the case at bar without over
urning the principles Of these decisions,
and this we have no disposition TO do.
The record shows no privty whatever
between the compliments and the Sui
phur Mines Company. and fails to dis
close any equity in their favor against 1t.
Il is simply the ordinary case of the
purchase of real estate and the suisse
luent discovery that a third person
claims to have a superior right 10 II, and
however advantageous ii may be 10 the
complainants TO have the title and
boundaries of their purchases settled and
defined in advance Of the payment of
he purchase money, they have no right
under the circumstances to implead the
appellant in a court Of equity. The bill
should have been dismissed as to the
Sulphur Mines Company and with such
3ismission the cross bill would fall, for
the company, not being properly a
party TO the original bill, it would not be
made "A defendant TO the cross bill"
Derbyshire VS.. Jones, 26 s. T. r.. 4l6.
For the foregoing reasons the decree
appealed from must be reversed, the bill
dismissed, the bill dismissed as to the
Sulphur Mines Company, of Virginia. and
the cause remanded TO the Circuit Court
for such further proceedings to De had
therein as the compliments may be adj
vised they are entitled TO, and which to
the court may seem proper"
other supreme Court Matters.
In the case Of RAIDER and ais. VS.. Mol
ston National Building and Loan Asso- |
citation. from the Corporation Court OF /
the city of Bristol, the court entered this |
order:
This case is before US upon a petition |
for an appeal and supersedeas 10 de- |
cree of the Corporation Court Of Bristol |
appointing a receiver Of the defendant |
company and we deem IL proper that |
further proceedings should be had In |
hat court before an appeal is allowed.
II is suggested in the petition for an APP
peal that the Judge of the Corporation /
Court is stakeholder in the defendant
company, which, If true. would disqualify
im as a Judge, but OF this fact there
appears as yet to be no proof in the
record We are of opinion that the petit
ion should be refused"
Camp VS.. Bruce Circuit Court of Nan
'emond county Appeal and supersedeas;
bond $3.50
Carter vs.. Carter. Circuit Court OF
irayson County. Appeal and superse-
ieas; bond 500.
Manly Manufacturing Company VS..
3roaddus, &c. Argued by Marshall Nc
,ormiok and II. T. Benton, Esqs., and
submitted
The next case to be called is Sims VS.
Sims, No. 80.