Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-03-19
COURT OF APPEALS.

COURT OF APPEALS.
The Court of Appeals yesterday
handed down opinions in three Rich
mond cases, all appeals from the Law
and Equity Court.
Judge Buchanan wrote the opinian in
the case of Tatum and others VS.. Ballard
and others. The suit was brought to
recover a debt of $3.50 secured by
mortgage on property in Florence, Ala.
]. W. Ballard, who brought the suit,
made A. L. Ellet, jr., and wife, L. B.
Tatum and wife, and ]. w. Borst, par.
ties to the suit. A decree was asked
giving the complainant the residue Of
the debt. 1t was allegated that the
property had passed through several
hands, but that the mortgage had not
been paid, though it had been regularly
foreclosed in an Alabama court. The
defendants filed demurrer, but it was
yoverruled and the decree entered
against them. The appeal was taken
and the higher court af1irms the de-
cson of the lower court.
Judge Buchanan also wrote the
opinion in the case of Elicit VS.. Nc
Ghee, suit to recover the balance due
on note given by ]. w. Borst to w.
II. McGee for 81, $50. The note had to
do with the properly transaction in the
above case, and a decree was given
against Elicit and wife and Tatum and
wife in the Law and Equity Court. The
court reverses the decision.
Judge Keith wrote the opinion in
the case of Sulphur Mines Company
vs. Phoenix Insurance Company. The
complainant company sued to recover
81, 1888 as damage done it by fire
to its property insured in the Phoenix
Company. The policy contained pro-
vision that if property insured is mort
gagged or otherwise encountered with
out the consent Of the company that it
was void. The evidence at the trial
showed the property at the time Of in
surance had deed of trust on it. The
claim was made that the provision in
the policy was not noticed until after
the fire. Decree was entered by the
Law and Equity Court for the defend
ant.
By Judge James Keith, P.-Reese &
1 ".
county; reversed.
Baltimore Steam Packet Company
vs.. Williams and others and N. Y. ?.
& N. Railroad Company VS.. Williams
and others, Corporation Court city Of
| Norfolk; reserved.
Bolton and others vs.. Vellines,
Chsncery Court city of Norfolk; af-
irmed.
Foeedman's administrator VS.. But
tiers, Circuit Court of Culpeper county;
reversed.
By Judge John w. Riely-Pryor vs.
Commonwealth, Circuit Court, of Mont
gomery county; affirmed.
Burruss VS.. Hines, Law and Equity
Court of the city of Norfolk; reversed.
Jameson VS.. Rixey and others, Cir
cult Court of Culpeper county; re-
versed.
By Judge r. H. Cardwell-Cheat-
ham and others VS.. Cover and others,
Circuit Court of Chesterfield county;
reversed.
Kerfoot's executor VS.. Shenandoah
Valley Bank. Application for man
damus.
By Judge John A. Buchanan-Math-
ews VS.. Traders Bank of Lynchburg,
Corporation Court of city of Lynch
burg; reversed.
By Judge George NJ. Harrison
Morotock Insurance Company vs.. Eos
toria Novelty Company, Corporation
Court of the city of Danville; affirmed.
Ballou and others VS. Ballou, Corpo-
ration Court city of Lynchburg; re.
versed.
Temples administrator vs. Wright,
Circuit Court of Brunswick county;
reversed.
Cohoke Woodenware Company and
others VS.. Coffee Machine orks, Law
and Equity Court city of Rich mond;
appeal and sup1na, bond 81, 900.
Boyd and wife vs.. Clegjorn and
others, writ OF error and supersedeas to
the Circuit Court of Smythe county,
bond 5000.
Watts VS.. Krowl, writ of error and
supersedeas Circuit Court of Tazewell
county, bond 5000.
Worsham vs.. Commonwealth, County
Court of Allegheny, writ of error re-
fused.
Jennings VS.. Bank of Radford, Cir.
cult Court of Pulaski county, appeal
refused.
CSC. Railroad Company VS.. Cloves,
Circuit Court city of Richmond, writ of
error refused.
Meyers Tvs. town of Wytheville,
Circuit Court of Wytheville county,
writ of error refused.
Floyd VS.. town of Wytheville, Circuit
Court OF Wythe county, writ of error
refused.
Smuth vs.. Commonwealth, Hastings
Court city of Radford, writ of error re-
fused.
Darden vs. Ferguson. Further ar
gued and submitted.
Shield VS.. Mahoney. Argued and
continued until to-day.
The next cases to be called are
Brewing vs.. Cheeks executor, Wild
berger VS.. Cheeks executor and Casey
vs.. Cheeks executor, Nos. 6o SO and 70
on regular docket.