Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-12

By Harrison. J.;
First as TO the bills OF exception:
No. /. as 10 admission OF certain docu-
Of error makes no reference TO IL. No
ground OF objection is pointed out. and
none IS perceived by this court.
No. z AS TO testimony of Bell to prove
what was said by witness on former
trial since dead: This not made an as
fignment OF error IN petition. and tho
fact having been proved by other Witness
es Bells testimony. II wrongly admitted.
vac harmless.
No. 8. Dispositions taken De bene esse,
and agreement OF counsel In writing war
Fanted their admission.
No 4 Deposition OF Roach. an inmate
Of soldiers Home, too sick to attend
trial. Certificate 20 that effect and
shsriTs return omitted from record. and
cannot be considered. No error IN this
ruling.
BY deed OF May Is. 1858. John Edwards
conveyed TO ". Chapman. trustee, tract
OF land Of which the tract in controversy
was a part. for benefit Of his daughter,
Hannah during his life. and then TO her
legal heirs. Under this deed appellee
Claims, June 9, 1885. John Edwards con-
veyed same tract with eight shares and
divers personality to j. Chapman In trust
70 secure II. Chapman two debts, 81 41.
and the same day took the insolvent
debtors oath, fling Herewith this sche-
dule: Il have no property OF any de-
scription or. IL / have any l am
Wiling % surrender It. Possibly L may
have an interest in the property convey
90 this day 10 j. Chapman: If any,
II Is hereby surrendered"
May 2. 1870. Row, late Sheriff. conveyed
% Joseph Edwards all the right, title,
ETC.. IN him as Sheriff, under the insolvent
Debtors schedule. setting forth that he
had sold according to law all the interest
OF John Edwards in the trust deed to J.
Cebapman said John Edwards being In
custody at the date OF said last deed at
amt Of two creditors for $50, and that
1,seph Edwards had become purchaser az
the price OF $50.
through this deed appellant through
several subsequent alterations, traces
title. II the deed from John Edwards
20 ". Chapman for benefit Of Hannah
ard her legal heirs was bona fde, no SUBJ
sequent act Of the grantor could affect
title of grantee nor could his subsequent
,usolvent debtors oath prejudice her or
them. The deed was upon good consid-
Grafton when made. and II grantor re-
served ample property to pay his debts.
then n was bona fide and not made 10
hinder. &c. creditors. And this was
question 10 b. settled by the jury. Bur-
den was on Sdallory TO show title under
deAd for. benefit Of Hannah and her heirs;
and whether he were the person entitled
under tfat deed was a question for the
fury.
The question Of the Statute Of Iimita-
ti0us as a bar to appellee's rights was
aIso a question for the jury, and the
COURTS Instructions on that point were
un0biectionabie-
rhe Jury found for the plaintiff, which
they could not have done unless they
believed that the deed from John Ed
wards for benefit of Hannah. &C., was
bona fide. and not made "a defraud credi-
tors that appellee had shown himself the
person entitled under that deed; and that
The right Of action did not accrue to him
until lS8S. when his right was not barred.
Held: i. These facts being established,
everything contended for by appellant
might be admitted. and could not AFFECT
the result. for II the deed were bona fide,
81 was not affected by subsequent acts or
the grantor. the land IT conveyed never
vested in the Sheriff. and, therefore, could
not have been sold or conveyed by him.
2. Argument Of counsel 1T Is the duty
Of counsel in argument, to contine them.
selves 90 the case, the evidence properly
before the Jury, and the law as laid down
I'M. the court: and an unwarranted depar-
ture therofrom might make II necessary
10 set aside the verdict. In this case 1t
Is not perceived that the remarks COM
planned OF could have prejudiced appellant,
especially In view of the courts instruc-
tons.
Evans VS.. Price, Trustee, and ais. Az
frmed. Opinion by Keith, p:
Scott and Davis purchased lot OF
Farley for $500, paying $500 in cash,
with bond for balance at 8 per cent In
tereFt, payable annually, secured by
deed of trust. Controversy as 10 usury' !
alleged in cross-bill and denied in an
gwers: The bond reserves n greater rate |
OF interest than is allowed by law, but |
II Is claimed that II was not given Tor |
the "loan or forbearance OF money, or |
other thing" but that the bond and in !
terest reserved thereon constituted part
OF the purchase price OF the lot.
Held: Usury can only attach 10 loan |
OF money. or 10 the forbearance OF a |
debt. On a contract TO secure the price
or value Of work done or to be done,
or of property sold. agreement may be
made upon one price for cash, and upon
a. large an addition TO the cash price
"a may be contracted for If credit be
given II Is wholly immaterial whether
the enhanced price be by the simple
ADDITION Of a lump. sum or by per-
,sntage thereon. In neither case IS the
usurious. 1t is neither
oap nor the forbearance OF a debt, but
simply the contract price OF work ana
abor done, or property sold. Graeme
N. Adams. % Graft, 23L The statement
IN Brockenbroughs Executors VS.. Spin
Sic. II Graft, p, that usury shall be
proved beyond rational doubt to the
contrary" would be accepted with re-
uctanca. and seems severe in its terms,
,ut the Court Is warranted, indeed, COM
5eued. 10 hold that - must be proved
Nv a clear and satisfactory preponder-
moe OF evidence. one witness only.
.harees usury; one, the original obligee
n the bond. denies it. II the
interest represented a part OF the
purchase price Of the property. without
which the sale could not have been made,
he Circuit Court did not err in holding
hat there was no usury under the law
n Graeme VS. Adams, and the rule OF
whence universally accepted as applica'
he 20 usurious transactions.
2 While the law In many Jurisdictions
3 that only the legal rate can be re-
0yered after the debt becomes due, un-
lss the continuance OF the greater rate
e expressly provided for in the contract