Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-11-18
OUR SUPREME COURT.
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN YEsTER
DAY IN ELEVEN CASES.
MANY QUESTIONS PASSED UPON.
Two Decisions Touching the Matter
of Contributory Negligence and
Others Hearing on Liability of En-
dorser, Partnerships, &c.

Eleven cases were decided In the SUI
preme Court of Appeals yesterday and
/ applications for writs OF error in a large
number OF others were passed upon. This
was the first opinion day OF the term, and
most OF the cases decided were argued
either at stanton or wythevile. Fol-
/ lowing are digests OF the opinions:
LIABILITY OF ENDORsER.
| Citizens National Bank VS.. Walton. Re-
versed Opinion by Keith. 7.
! Fielding and Walton sold real estate,
! held jointly, the cash payment was equal
! ~ divided. and OF six negouaDle notes
| for the deferred payments each took three
as IN full Of his share of the proceeds
| These notes were payable "to William NJ.
| Fielding and S. a. Walton, or order so
1 each endorsed 10 the other. the endorse
ment on the note in controversy being;
| For value received. l hereby assign ana
| transfer unto William M. Fielding all
right. title. and interest that ! may nave
| i'm the within note. 5. a. Walton. Ana
| afterwards IL was endorsed TN BLANK by
! w. NJ. Fielding -
| came owner Of this note, and 1T was pro-
| tested for non-payment. ana noucc there,
| OF given TO the cndorSers--W altoI anu
| Fielding. In the action that folioWeu
| Walton claimed that he was not llaDle
as endorser. and did not endorse. and that
| M was not liable as assignor, because tlle
| bank had not used due diligence against
! the drawer or against his ovation - 10
| signee Judgment for DEFENDANT anu t"o
/. walton was permitted to testify in
his own behalf, practically as the iacts
are set out above. ,
Held The testimony was linprop "f
| admitted when the legal import OF Il
contract is clear and definite, the lhteh,
tion of the parties is, for all substantial
purposes, as distinctly ana 4ully eApIesss
ed as if they had written out IN WoTgs
what the law implies" Though the
writing be only a signature as an en-
dorsement in blank, yet where the Jaw
attaches TO il a clear, nnequlNocaI anu anu
definite import, the contract can no hoIs
be varied or contTadicted by evidence OF
a cotemporaneous parol agreement man
if Il had been fully written our. MS
| general principles are Of the utmost I'M
portance i'm the administration OF justice
without them there would De no Ger Il
! taintv i'm written contracts; no safety III
the most formal transactions. Ihey
ought not 10 be frttercd away by nice
distinctions to meet the hardshlps, real
| or supposed. of particular cases. oou-
| ward. Baldwin co. vs. FoSteIi 10 'i"'"'
2o5. Martin VS. Lewis, 80 Graft. 6S2
2 The note was payable 10 two payeSs'
both of whom had TO endorse 10 pas uttr
( Neither could negotiate IL Wluhout ~, t,'
/ assent Of the other. To make II exclusive
! Nv Fieldine's IL was necessary thal Nai-
-, endorse H. lie could have limited
his liability by a restrictive endorsenehl'
1 but the endorsement made by MN -
{ oc,,i,-afent 10 an endorsement In Dlanh'
/ ord lie nresumed 10 have been so made in
! order 10 give IL credit by his name. 1heie
/ bv he clothed Fielding with power 10 NJ
gotiate. and an innocent purchaser TOOK
/ IN freed from any equity between MN
ana Fieldfng Daniel on Negotiable In
Struments section CSi: Parsons on BIS
and Notes, .. -,
The other assignment, that no motion
was made for a new trial IN the CitcuI |
Cont. and the plaintiff in error is TO De
considered as having waived MS eKcep-
ton. has no application in this case. here
a iurv was waived. and the whole matter
submitted TO the court. 1t would nave
6atn an iale form to move for a new
trial rDon the same law ana evidence
upon which the court had lust rendered
Judgment Newberry VS.. Williams, - a.
2.g. Town OF Bridgewater VS.. Aiiehlohs'
g Va 542: y. ana W. X. " vs. Duiii"
way. % Va. "a.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
\. and w. r. CO. VS.. Graham. Reversed
opinion by Keith, =.
Graiien was a helper in the company $
yards The yard foreman directed LoMt y
| 10 20 with an engine ana move q O'l - -
81 point In the yard where some car
wheels had been deposited Tor Tepalis,
and detailed Graham and several otheIs
to go with him. In loading the Wheels
ON The car a brake-rod was IN the way
of the workmen. ana II was lo s.lv,,, =, ~
! Graham and others by the FOREMAN :
orders. The loading was done WlIhV .,l
accident when the foreman directsu tne
men 10 take the skid which had peen
used I'm loading, back 10 me PltCe II ~ y
a certain point and not 10 leave the CaI
iii the hrake-rod had been replaced. / III
foreman went elsewhere ana l' .ro,s
with the engine, Grdham, anu otne. -
'-'-+ 4. TOrGmqn'E orders.
When the place where the SKld was u
bn unioaded was reached, Lowry stopped
and The skid was taken OFF, ana dIanan
who understood the foreman 49, ss
be that ne should replace the prake a.
coon MS the car stopped, went uuuci lIl'
AR at the end farthest from the tnsi' ~
cot down upon the track, ana WIN III,
9eeistonce of Robinson, VINO SloOu upoI
, ~ COR and held the brake-rod IN an
! ,,nriobt DositiOn, proceeded 10 hasten u
. i'm place. Neither Lowry nor Gilmore WV ~
had also got on the engine 65Lineor
! Grahams dangerous position 81 20,
gaVe them no warning. taking ~ ~
Granted mat Graham had gone uhuer VI,
. - With The knowledge that IL was no
IN he moved. Both Gilmore ana NV 10
testify that Gilmore rang u-e W. n,,,r
many as five strokesIWhetp niIljonon they
nnt The engine i'm motion. Roplnson =, tiie =,
, / rollod Ia Lowry to stop. Whlch ne ulu d,
! y~on,ntiv as possible. but AFTER setlou'
and nainful injuries sustained 10y vi an| ~
! Neither Graham nor iNoOi"'
bell. oo, attached TO al
I'M under such circumstances, WItiou
notifving the cngineman, was az az ~
! ,,c,,li@ence The facts proved SNOW t"o
ne neril incurred was sucn as h.oiI ~
orIinorv Intelligence must nave seen az
,rScretood His indiscreuon WIS VI
,,ll,l,ediote cause Of his injuries Inc eVi
I'M fsils 10 disclose negligence 10y III
/ GoFcDdant company While II Is one y
~ ~ Ills ~ n railroad company 10 pre-
ny ,.,ioe for the conduct Of Its aliaIs
SCIiD1 tiunoesible 10 formulate rules u
: IL liInnle service of its employees
SSNNS,,Stbing Is necessarily left TO the car
ou ,H disnretion Of the employees theIn
] en- Moore Lime Co. VS.. hcharuso"
| O. Va, 1885, .,,,c,,,D
PRIORITIES-MERGE
4 | Rorer. &c, vs.. fersuSoH' "''
! opinion by Keith. +. u,,,,.t pawn
? Underwood got judgment agaiiist Lay lay - -
g. 90 nj the March term 1913, uoVN''
&rru 1Sq3 the lien relating PACK Y
~ beoinning of the term. hNecutlo
a forthcoming bond dated May ., ieJ'
z ar Porer a Didier securities; 1orIehe
e W. SSd part Of the real estate o
- $50 e 90. was conveyed April o, ~,
= - f{inrt trustee TO secure notes LOT $4zV
ocd June 81 following the same IeaItS
- s,hfect 10 this trust, was conveyed VII
,,onerol warranty TO Ferguson LOT - az
Ga nee,,nDtion of the trust hen. III IN
rircnit Court beginning April H. ioS,
Dunbar & Cape got Ju9slhSsht, ooae LIZ IL
PAYNE & Co.. docketed NAY :. 800 ~
cution May 6. 1885, ana iorthcoiilns D9 %.
,,'itb Rorer & Didier suretes' also loi