The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-26

yer as trustee, to secure appellee. Bawyer
resigned as trustee. and appellee gave
Pettus notice Of motion to substitute vines
I'm his stead Pettus resisted the motion,
and excepted to the judgment OF tne
court In making the substitution on tne
ground that Sawyer was the president ana
a stockholier of the association, ana tnat'
therefore, the deed to him was mort
gage and not deed OF trust; and being
a mortgage, II was necessary TO go INTO
chancery to enforce It.
Held. In substituting trustee, the court
exercised special jurisdiction under sta
tute, and the effect OF its Judgment Is
limited to the particular act 1t Is autnor-
ized to perform. In the judgment com
planned OF, 1t does not undertake to con-
strue the deed or ascertain the rights OF
the parties thereto, which would have
been in excess of it's jurisdiction and
aullity. The rights Of the parties under
the deed are left wholly unaffected by the
order.
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Washington Southern Railway Company
VS.. Lacey Reversed. Opinion by Judge
Buchanan.
Lacey recovered damages for injuries
by reason of alleged wrongful and negh-
gent conduct OF the company at street
crossing in Alexandria, and writ OF error
Held. A general ordinance of city, pro-
viding how all railroads shall run thelr
engines through the city Is admissible IN
evidence. Even IL the special orulhahcc
nc to this company were inadmissible,
about which no opinion is expressed, be-
cause unnecessary, the objection, being
general and not to each ordinance sepa-
rately. was properly overruled. where
evidence Is offered. a part Of which Is ad-
missible and a part not. and the obJec-
ton Is general. it must be overruled.
Hartman vs.. Brown, Leigh, b9i; Frleho
We Wilkinson. &c. Watt, 81; Parsons
vs.. Harper, l6 ID, "a; Trodgen's case, 81
ID. S63, Ssl.
. Instructions. whether asked by one
or both parties, when given, become the
instructions of the Court ana must De
construed as a whole. Defects in one may
be cured by a correct statement OF the
law In another if. when read and con
sidered together, the Court can see that
the iurv could not have been mislead py
tho defective construction. Gray'S case
% Va. 772, 776.
2 Under our practice II there be any
evidence tending TO prove the facts upon
which an instruction Is based, ana IL cor
rectly states the law applicable 10 such d
state OF facts. the instruction snoulu De
given Hopkins VS.. Richardson, pIatl'
as, 400. Parish va. Riegle. II ID. 59l fl9;
Tarlv VS.. Garland. 1S ID. 3 60; Niche W.
Cochran 50 Va, p 5. r.. r., Ssi-o; Minor
Sec. 1886.
4 The mere fact Of looking and listen
ing is not always the performance oil ,he
duty incumbent upon the traVeller' lor
no must also exercise care 10 make tne
acts OF looking and listening reasonably
effective. He must not approach 'he ,ra.h
at such speed that it will be too late 10
nrotect himself from injury when he
reaches a point where he can hear or
Geo the train. He must exercise ordinary
care in attempting 10 cross or in crossing
,ba track and care is never ordinary IN
less proportionate 10 the known danger.
| 2 Elliott on Railroads. Sections llbf-oo. :
shermand & Radf. on Negl, Sec. 40 40
Jrhe track itself is a proclamation OF
| danger. IL Is his duty 10 use eyes anu
cars before going on Il. He should look
in both directions and listen, ana II MS
faculties warn him Of the near approacii
of a train, he should keep on the track
| Otherwise If injury ensue, ne cannot re-
cover. unless the company, by Ordinary
care and diligence, might have prevented
the injury after 1t discovered or oush'
| to have discovered his peril. Johnson vs.
c. &, O. Railway Co., 81 Va, III.
The plaintiff having failed to perform
| this duty, the judgment must be reversed
SUMMARY.
Pettus VS.. Atlantic Savings ana Loan
! Association. Hastings Court OF Nca-
| noke Affirmed.
Judge r II. Cardwell; 81.
classified Building Association vs. Cole-
man and Sans. trustees. Circuit court
~ Norfolk cour ty. Affirmed.
| Judge John A. Buchanan
New York Life Insurance company "
Davis and Others. Circuit Court OF Hen
~ county Reversed.
| washington and Southern faii"ay
Company VS.. Lacey. Circuit court Guy
of Alexandria. Reversed.
| Judge George NJ. Harrison:
Haskin Wood Vulcani7ing Company vs.
Cleveland shipbuilding Company. Cor
| noration Court OF Alexandria. Affirmed.
Bumgardner and ais. Va Hammond
Tvpewriter Company. Circuit court oi
| Wvthe county. Writ OF error refused,
Terry VS.. city Of Richmond. Further
argued by II. r. Pollard, ESQ, Tor pam
tiff in error. and submitted.
piebmond Locomotive and Machine
Works vs.. Ford. Argued by j. Ais'oi,
| Cabeu ESD. for plaintiffs in error ara
| Cbas. Y. Meredith. Esq, for defenuahl
e. error and continued until to-day
The next case TO be called Is Taylor vs.
Mahoney, No. %. ", eco,rr