The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-19

T. tenant. II his fellows refuse to unite, may
have the repairs done and sue ior COM
pensation.
DEEDS CONSTRUED.
Temples administrator VS.. wright he-
versed. opinion by Judge Harrison
This case invoices the construction or
a deed which is in the usual form TO these
words. the condition OF this deed IS
that the said lanl is conveyed TO X. u
Wright for Ills special use. beneht ana
profit. for and during his natural Ire.
and at Ills death 10 his son. Edward
Wright. to him and his heirs. or assigns
forever etc.
Held: The grantor intended 10 give Is
G. Wright. an estate for life with remain
der I'm fee to his son. Edward Wright.
BILLS OF EXCEPTION. USCRf.
Mathewss Adm'tr. vs.. Traders Bank.
Reversed Opinion by Judge Buchanan
Held. There are exceptions TO the rue
that ore bill Of exception cannot ne look
ed 10 In aid OF another unless expressly
referred 20: ns in case where one or the
bills contains all tho evidence. which was
given on the trial and was taken after
an the evidence had been submitted TO
tho Jury Perkins vs.. HankinS, Graft.
eie. go.
2 The Illegal consideration may b
purged where third persons. strangers In
whole 81 In Part TO the original security
Intervene. and for motives peculiar 10
themselves and unaffected by the usuFi-
Gus consideration. supersede or suppiant
It by a new obligation OF their own crea-
ton although one of the surcties 10 tho
original security was 4 surety upon the
new Obligation. Drake rs Chandler, IL
Graft. 9O9-l0 II would be difficult II not
impossible to lay down a rule applicable
t. all cases. for the usurer. like other
violators OF law resorts TO various de-
vices % escape the penalty Of his Illegal
acts.l
The court looks 10 the substance and not
10 tho form Of the new security 10 as
certain its real character. The mere
change ~ the maker or endower I'm tho
renewal OF a usurious note does not purge
/, II usury where the original debtor con-
tnuos the real debtor IN fact though In
form a surety or end0rsor.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith +. --Reese & Co, ~.
Rates. Circuit Court Of Norfolk county.
! Reversed.
BAIT steam Packet co vs. Williams &
Williams & Others. Corporation Court
city OF Norfolk. reversed
Bolton & ais. vs.. Vellros Chancery
| Court. City OF Norfolk. affirmed.
Freeman's admr. VS. Buffers. Circuit
/ Court Of Culpeper county. Reversed.
Sulphur Mines Co VS. Phinex ms. Co.
Law and Equity Court city OF Richmond.
Affirmed.
Judge John W Riely-Pryor vs.. Com.
Circuit Court Of Montgomery county. AZ
hrmcd.
Rurruss VS.. Hines Law and Equity
! Court city OF Norfolk. Reversed.
Jameson vs.. Rixey & Others. Circuit
Court OF Culpeper county Reversed.
all Na.nH4 D.
ais Us. Cover & ais. Circuit Court o.;
! Chesterfield county. Reversed
Kerfoot's exor VS. Shenandoah Valley
Bank Application for mandnmus. Man
| damus denied.
Judge John A. Buchanan. Tatum 4 ais.
vs.. Ballard Law and Equity Court city
/ OF Richmond. Affirmed
Elicit vs.. McGhee. Law and E1uity
| Court city Of Richmond. Decree reversed.
Mathews VS.. Traders Bank OF Lynch
burg CORPORATION Court city Of Lynch
burg Reversed.
Judge Geo. NJ Harrison Morotock lns.
/ CO. vs.. Fostoria Novelty Co Corporation
Court city OF DanvilIe. Affirmed.
| Court city OF Lynchburg. Reversed.
Temples admir- vs.. Wright. Circuit
| Court OF Brunswick county. reversed.
CohRe Woodenwaro 60. Il ais. vs. COT
court city Of Richmond. Appea. and
sup.
boyd and wife vs.. Cleghorn & ais. Writ
OF error and sup. to the Circuit Court OF
! Smytho county
! Watts vs.. krowl writ 81 error and
sup. Circuit Court OF Iazewell county.
Worsham IS. Com. County Court OF
! Allegheny Writ OF error refused
Jennings vs.. Bank OF Rad.oti Circuit
! Court 81 Pulaski county. Appeal refused
g. * O. X. j. co. vs. Cloves. Circuit
| Court city OF Kchmcnd. Writ Of error
| refused
Meyers VS. Town OF Wythcvlle. Circuit,
! Court OF Wythe county. Writ Of error re-
| fused
Floyd VS. Town Of Wytheville. Circuit
| Court Of Wythe county Writ Of error re-
| fused.
Smyth Us. Com. Hastings Court city
| Of RalfOrd Nrt OF error refused.
! Dlrden VS.. FERGUSON. further argued by
/ Jackson Guy, Esq. for appellant and sub
/ mitted.
| Shields VS. Nahoncy. argued by r. n.
! BOrland Esq. for appellant and contln-
| ucd until to-day.
The next cases 20 be called are Brown
! ing vs. Cheeks ex'or. Wildberger ".
! Cheeks. eX'or. and Casey US. Cheeks.
! ex'or.. Nos 6S. g.. and 20. o. regular dock
/ et
W. w. SCOTT.