Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-11-18

deed OF July 20, 1895, conveys. This rem
ders unnecessary any consideration OF
the evidence as to whether mistake IN
fact WAS made. or whether It was such
mistake as equity would correct. The
parties cannot be restored To the status
quo of July 20. 1895. The right or sur
worship. surrendered by Joseph V. Sny-
der was worth as much as the rights COM
plainants surrendered TO him. There was
nothing unreasonable in the exchange.
The title of survivorship passed under
the deed to Joseph V. Snyder, and by his
deed to Flora Grandstaff the title be-
came vested I'm her. and there is no case
made by complainants for relief in equity.
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Russell Creek Coal Company vs. Wells
Reversed. opinion by Cardwell j.
Action for injuries by falling OF piece
Of slate from the roof Of the coal mine
OF the company, In which plainnn was
working. Judgment for 1900.
Held: J. No bi1l OF exceptions was neces-
sary TO the overruling Of the demurrer to
declaration, as the judgment in the de-
murrer was sufficient to bring the ruling
under review upon writ OF error.
The declaration stating n good cause of
action the demurrer was properly over
ruled. Rich. Loco Works VS.. Ford, 81 va;
$40. Jones VS. Old Dom. Cotton-Mils, "
Va. $40, 147-S; Minor, GOO; Code, sec. $40.
2. The servant is under as great opl-
cation to provide for his own SAFETY from
such dangers as are known 10 him. or are
discernable by ordinary care on his part,
as the master is TO provide for MN.
Bailey's Liability of Master, l59; worm
vile We. Me. Central Railroad Company,
70 Me-. 39T: McDonald's Admir- vs.. Nor
folk and Western Railroad Company. -
va, 1O5; Bertha Zine Company VS.. Mar
tins Admir-. % Va, 1911; Robinson's Admr
VS.. Dining. 30 $. T.. r., Az.
The plaintiff not only neglected TO 90
as he was Instructed by the mine boss,
and promised 10 do, but almost lmme-
diateiy after sending off blast. when
might as he admits, have loosened tne
slate that fell on him, went upon the
tracl<Way and, under that piece OF STATE,
10 see If Il were loose. Why should ne
have gone to see II this particular piece
were loosened by the blast, If he had not
known that it was loose, and that he had
neglected TO prop it, as he had promised.
He assumed the risk. and must nave
known the danger, as he was not u
stranger 10 such work, but miner OF
seven years experience, familiar win the
processes and forces used I'm operating the
mine Knowing the unsafe condluOn OF
the Mace where he was working, ne was
not compelled to continue the work, ana
If so continuing without exercising oral
nary care and prudence for his safety,
must be held to have assumed not ohly
the risks ordinarily incident to the SER
vice when he entered it, but also such
as became known to him in the progress
of the work. or which were readily dis
| cernible by a person Of his age ana ca
pacity i'm the exercise OF ordinary care
| Robinson VS.. Dining, supra.
PARTNERSHIP.
| Wolfe e Co VS.. Prlngie q HILL Affirmed
Opinion by Buchanan, J.
Pringle and Hill were partners In Dusl-
ness. About October I, 1891, Hill sold out
! to Pringle. who undertook to pay me
! debts of the concern-of which the dept
of the appellants was one. About Octo-
| Der 10th Southall went into partnership
| with Pringe which continued TIL Janu-
| arv ,. 1892. when it was dissolved. Prin-
| Gle conveying all his interest to Southall
| for the following purposes, as stated III
| the assignment: >,
| nose of as he may deem best
| - To pay all the debts, &c, Tor Whlch
| Prinele 4 Southall are legally bound, IN
| GLIDING costs incident to this settlement
| and the winding up Of the business.
| - After paying all the debts OF Prln-
| gle a. SOuthall. the residue 10 be equally
| divided, and the share OF Pringle to be
| applied, first. 10 any debt due on settle
| ment bv Pringle 10 SOuthall, and any
| debts of said Pringle for which Southall
| is bound with him, or may nave TO pay
| by reason of any act OF Prlngle; ana,
| secondly. the residue, If any, to Prlngl9
| himself The same day Pringle decided
| other property 10 protect Southall from
| any loss as surety of Pringle. or from MS
| acts while n member Of the firm.
| In February. 1922, appellants MED orlgl-
| nal. and in April supplepantal, Din ~
| compel payment OF debts que tneih py
| Pringte q Hill out OF the properly CON-
| veyed to Southall.
Held: 1t is clear from the record that
| Pringle & Southall never at any time ult d
| dertook 10 pay the debts OF PrlnSle q
| nm The record does not show tnat tne
| creditors of p. az II. have a Hen in equity
| upon the assets of =. & II. that came into
| the hands of p. & S, Pringle assumed
| their payment. but there is no suggestion
| that they were TO be paid out of the as
| sets OF the concern, or tnat any hei
! was reserved to secure their payment.
p Partnership creditors have no neI
| or partnership assets for the payment o.
| their debts. but must work out Iheli
| through the equities OF SUCH members
| Shackelford VS. ShackelfOrd, 81 Graft.
ash, 500; 2 Lindley on Part. NJ, p. 69i. IN
| der the facts disclosed in the record th'
creditors of Pringle & Hlll nave no no. Ie Il
| i'm equity upon the assets OF thdt hlin Il
the hands of Southall.
g. During the partnership or r.
| Southall, =. made two nesouaple hoteS
! upon which he endorsed the name FRINGE
& southall, without the kno oSas . pi
| given Tor a debt for which South9ll wa
not liable. Pringle not being authorize
either as partner or otherwise to max
such endorsement no liability upoi
| SOuthall was cfedleu, anu a. '' O"ti",
was not liable for or bound 10 pay
them. they do not come within the pro
visions of the deed OF assignment.
JOINDER.
| Peatv vs. Downing Amended and affirm
ed Opinion by Buchanan, j.
The widow of Beatty filed her Dill agalhs
Yoke. her husbands administrators, am
! Downing. alleged 10 be debtor 10 IN
| estate-alleging that the admlnlsfato
had fallen short of his duties IN ascertain !.
ing the assets-and especially IN lnal IL
| had not ascertained the facts as 10
nolicv of Hfe-insurance held by DoWnlni
| on her husbands life, which. she alleges
would have paid any liability of her nus
hand 10 Downing. and left a balance du
the estate. Downing demurIed, ana Dol,
he and Yoke answered it. Bill dismissed
and appeal. ,., .,uo,,..
| etonces-s1ch as the insolvency or IN
administrator, collision between him am
the debtor, that the debtor was partner
! trustee or agent of the decedent-can
lo@otee or creditor OF a decedents estat
maintain a suit against the personal rep
! resentatiye and another VINO Is deDtO
| to the estate; but there Is no precise am
| rieid rule as to what constitutes Sucl
snecioi circumstance as will justify
i6inder Hogan VI. Walker, 10 How. y. "a
Wilson'S Administrator VS.. Wilson, 80 va.
SAG. Storys Eq. Pl and Pr, sec. Oh
The bill. not showing such special cir
| cumStances, was properly ulsHlSseu as L
| Downing. 80, e.
. THE statements Of the bill-taken 70
true upon demurrer-shOw that the admin
jstrator was grossly negligent, and wer
sufficient TO authorize the Court 10 requir
n settlement, and charge him with al
debts lost by his negligence ana LOT an
devastavit. This 1t doubtless would hay
done but for the fact, recited In the de
cree. that complainant had brought sui
against the administrator for the purpos