The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-09-26
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.

deed to Ford q Bennick trustees, Wnete-
upon the trustees, upon bill, asked to
be treated as a petition I'm the suit OK
Ford & Bennick. trustees, VS. Rosen-
berger ct ais. setting out the foregoing
facts and charging that n sale of inc
property under the executions would IT.
reparably damage the trust property I'm
the possession Of the trustees in that 10
would affect, If not defeat, the sale 70
Mcdowell. as the sale was agreed TO oe
made out Of the furniture, &c, In me
hotel as a whole outfit and Upon n guar
antee that the title thereto was good,
&c. obtained an injunction restraining
the sheriff of Augusta county, &c, from
selling the property. Upon motion tne
Circuit Court Of Shenandoah county III
vacation. the injunction was dissolved
"but without prejudice as TO the title 10
the property, the sale of which was en-
Joined"
Held: The question presented is, was 10
the duty OF the court belQg, upon the pc
titlon OF the trustees % onjoin tho sale
OF the property under the executions
thereby compelling the execution creol-
tors to come into the pending suit ana
Iitlgate their right 20 sell the property IN
question. 10 satisfy their execution? And
after reviewing at length the AUTHORITIES
az the court Is regarded as exclusively
the possession Of the court, the property
being REGARDED as IN the custody or inc
law. I'm gremio legs for the benefit o.
whoever NAV be ultimately determined TO
be- entitled TO its possession, ana thal
courts are exceedingly averso TO allow
ing any unauthorized interference there
with &C, since 20 permit the property
while IN the custody Of the receiver 10
be- levied upon and sold under the pro
cess of another court would az once give
rise 20 O. conflict OF jurisdiction ana
would seriously interfere with and Impair
the receivers right % the management
OF tho property under his appointment
&c. why does not this principle Apply
as well TO a trustee performing his duties
as such. under the orders OF n court OF
equity in a pending suit which he HIM
self has brought for the administration
OF his trust and In which the creditors
interested in the trust subject have been
convened. as to a receiver OF the COURT
Would the situation have been changed
mad the court below appointed Ford a.
Renuick trustees. receivers i'm the pending
suit. as IS frequently done, or even APP
pointed another. the receiver or the court
whether the trustees would be permitted
IN execute the trust under the orders of
tho court or receiver be appointed Tor
that purpose. was wholly within the dis
erection Of the court
THE court having acquired jurisdiction
| over the trustees and the subject or inc
I trust. IL would seem as mucn It's duty 10
protect the trust property from sale under
| an execution. as II the trust property was
| being administered by IT'S receiver IL
| was said by this court I'm Maddox vs..
I uh q
OF equity had acquired jurisdiction over
! q trustee and the subject Of the trustee ne
was powerIess 10 exercise his functions
as trustee without the express order or
the court allowing him to proceed. See
| also Ga. Home ms. Co. VS.. Bartlett, u
| va. 5g5.'
Held: 2. The Circuit Court should have
| continued the injunction awarded In this
case and settled the rights Of all parties
| concerned as 10 the property levied on
| and advertised for sale. Ga the pending
! suit OF Ford & Benniok trustees vs..
| Rosenberger & Ais. and the cause must
be renamed for further proceedings
therein IN accordance with the Views
expressed IN the opinion.
CONTEMPT.
Petition Of Cromwell for habeaus cor
/ nus. Denied. Opinion by Judge harrison.
Held The Circuit Court Of Norfolk
county did not exceed It's powers ia
awarding mandamus 70 the peutloneI.
| recurring performance or duties imposes
By law on him. as a member OF the hiec-
toral BOARD. 10 appoint judges OF election
at certain precincts IN the eoun'y, ai'
! to elect the secretary OF SAID Doaie :
therefore. the Circuit Court. having full
| iurisdiction TO Issue such wit, the suose-
ouent proceedings for contempt cannon
he reviewed IN this application Tor a
| habeas corpus.
petitioner remanded 70 the custody OF
the sheriff .
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE
Southern Railway Company vs. Smith
! Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Miss Smith bought a ticket az Lynch
! burg via Charlottesville. on her way
home. She had an appointment 20 meet
Ia, az Cbarlottesville @nd asked d
train official how long the train would
stop there. The reply was ten or fifteen
minutes When the train had come 70 q
fun stop there. and while passengers were
allghtlng she stepped to the rear plat
form 10 meet her friend and bring her INT
the coach. Just as she stepped on thi
platform. and while greeting her friend
the train started with a sudden and ylo
lent Jerk, throwing passengers down n
the car, and herself and friend head4ons
10 the ground.
The case came up on refusal 20 give
instructions asked by the company.
Held. While a platform Of a car IS no
made as a trystlng place for friends, We
when inquiry has been made, and pas
senger lulled into security by Information
that a train will stop fifteen minutes a
a station. and does stop, and passengers
are invited 10 alisht, passenger is No