The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-11-18

executed under mutual mistake. anu
! contrary 20 the real intention OF the
parties. plaintiffs take dispositions to
show mutual mistake. defendants TO show
| that the consideration was marriage. and
! the widow denies any mistake In the
deed. and claims 10 be a purchaser for
value and without notice.
Held. A purchaser FOR value and with
out notice Is not affected by any latent
equity. 4 mutual mistake stands on the
same footing as any other equity, and no
relief I'm equity can be had as against a
bona fide purchaser for value without
notice. Kerr on Fraud and Mistake.
42G. Pom. Equ.. Sec 06: Carter W. Allen,
q Graft, RoTer Iron Co. VS.. Trout %
Va, 40.
g. A. deed by man 10 his intended
wife. followed by marriage. IS conclu-
/ sivcly presumed to be I'm consideration
Of marriage. and Is based on valuable
/ c0nsideration-the highest consideration.
| Sterry VS. Arden, | Johns Oh. r., 2ll;
Huston VS.. Contrell. il. Leigh: Herring
! VS. Wickham. q Graft; Welles vs.. Coles,
Graft. Cl5 A voluntary deed before
marriage. upon marriage becomes a deed
! for valuable consideration. The change
made by the Code, Sec. 1853. was Intended
! 20 defeat frauds porpetTated upon exist
/ ing creditors by the marriage OF an in
/ solvent debtor accompanied by gifts TO
! his wife. Before this change man was
allowed 10 do for his concubine what he
/ could not DO for his wife. Compliments
/ here do not claim as creditors. but as
paramount purchasers under the viii, and
/ the law will not be considered changed
/ hy statute beyond the Modification OF the
statute.
g. Mrs. Snyder being purchaser for
value the burden is on compliments 10
! show that she is a purchaser with notice.
| Donaldson VS.. Levine. - = g., 412. Rey-
| nolds. vs.. Cook. So Va; Nye VS.. Lovitt'
% Va. TO- There was nothing on tho
| face of the deed Of partition from which
| she could have inferred that the parties
| thereto had made a mistake. She stands
as a purchaser for value and without
notice and has a right TO such title as
the deed Of July 20 1895, conveys. This
renders unnecessary any consideration
Of the evidence as 10 whether mistake
in fact was made. or whether u was
such "A mistake as equity would correct
The parties cannot be restored 10 the
status quo Of July %. 1885. Tho right OF
suryivorship surrendered by Joseph Y.
Snyder was worth as much as the rights
complainant surrendered TO him. There
was nothing unreasonable in the OK
change.
The title Of survivorship passed under
the deed to Joseph Y. Snyder, ana by
his deed to Flora Grandstan the title
became vested in her. and there is no
case made by compiainants for rellei
I'm equity.
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Russell Creek Coal Co.. VS. Wells. Re
versed. Opinion by Cardweh J.
Action for injuries by falling OF a piece
Of slate from the roof of the coal mine
Of the company in which plaintiff was
working. Judgment for goo.
Held l. No bin Of exceptions was ne
ccssary to the over-ru!ing Of the demur-
rcr to declaration. as the judgment I'm the
demurrer was sufficient 10 bring the ruiz
ing under review upon a writ Of error
The declaration stating a good cause
OF action the demurrer was properly
over-ruled Rich. Loco. Works vs.. Ford,
"a va 60. Jones VS.. old Dom. Cotton
Mills 50 Va. 40, 1f-S. Minor 60 Code,
Sec 1916.
=. The sorant Is under as great obliga-
ton to provide for his own safety from
such dangers as are known TO him, or
are observable by ordinary care on his
mart. as the master Is TO provide for him.
BaNeys Liability of Master. l59; Worm
Vile VS. Me. Sent. Il. Rd. Co. 70 Ne. 800;
McDOnalds Admir-. VS.. y. & W. r. Co
% Va. 1O5: Bertha Zinc co. VS.. Martins
Admir- 90 Va 79l. kObinsOn's Admir- v.
Dining 80 S. T.. +. 4i2.
The plaintm not only neglected 10 do
as he was instructed by the mine boss,
and promised 10 do, but almost immedi-
atcly after sending OFF blast, which
might as he admits. have loosencd the
slate that fell on him. went upon the
track way and under that piece OF slate
10 see if II were loose. Why should he
have gone to see If this particular piece
We're lo0sencd 10y the blast if he had not
known that IL was loose. and that he had
f..Tf re he I rtFI so
lie assumed the risk, and must have
known the danger. as he was not
stranger To such work. but a miner Of
seven years experience. familiar with
the processes and forces used I'm Operat-
ing the mine Knowing the unsafe con-
ditiOn Of the place whore he was working
ne was not compelled to ,Jntipue the
work and If SO continuing withou- 'ser-
cising ordinary care and prudence for bis
safety. must be held 10 have assumed
not only the risks ordinary incident 20
the service where he entered it. but also
such as became known 20 him in the
progress Of the work or which were readi-
ly discernibe by person Of his age and
capacity I'm the exercise OF ordinary care
Robinson vs.. Dining. supra.
PARTNERSHIP
Wolfe & CO. VS.. Pungle x IIiil. Affirm
Cd. Opinion by Buchanan, j.
Pringle and Hin were partners In busi-
ness. About October /. 1891, Hill sold out
10 Pringle who undertook 20 pay the
debts OF the concern, of which the debt
of the appellants was one. About October
10th. SOuthau went into partnership with
Prlngle. which continued ull January ..
1892. when It was dissolved. Prinsle con-
veying all his interest to S0uthan for the
following purposes, as stated In the -
signment.
J. To wind up and settle. sell ana dis
pose of as he may deem best.
q To pay ali the debts, etc.. for which
Pringle q Southall are legally bound. in
Guiding costs incident 20 this settlement
and tine winding up Of the business.
g. After paying all the debts of Prin-
gle d Southau the residue TO be equally
divided, and the share of Pringle 90 Doe
applied first 20 any debt due on settle
ment by Pringle 10 Southall and any
debts of said Prngie for which SOuthan
is bound with him or may have 90 pay
By reason of any act of Prngle, and,
secondly, the residue If any 90 Pringle
himself. The same day Pringle decided
other property 10 protect Southan from
any loss as surety Of PrnCle. or from
his acts while a member Of the firm.
In February. 1892, appellants filed orig
inal and in April supplemental bin 90
compel payment of debts due them by
Prinele and Hill out Of the property con-
Ncyed to SOuthall.