Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-09-25

tendent from any cause. ship US "a car
Of material that, according TO the judg-
ment OF our washer foreman, be unfit to
wash, this car is TO be side-tracked until
your superintendent can so and look at
II, and the two are TO decide what Is
best to be done about this car-;hat IL.
whether 1t shall be dumped and thrown
away, or washed to arrive at Its true
value in comparison with the other cars"
On the trial the company objected to
testimony to prove damages resulting to
Teaford from its delay in resuming ope-
rations. Objection overruled, which is
first error assigned
The general manager informed plaintiffs
of injury TO the pump, and assured them
that in five or six days new one would
DO procured and the work proceed. Time
went on. and the assurance was given
again and again, whereby plaintiffs were
kept in expectation and comparative idle
ness. After more than three months a
secondhand pump belonging to the pres
ident of the company, heretofore USED
In coal shaft, was brought and Work
was resumed; but not until the president
had bought land in the vicinity, contain
ing iron-ore. and the company had built
a railroad to II, and got ready to utilize
IT. Evidence had been introduced tending
10 prove that the long delay in getting
another pump was unnecessary and un-
reasonable.
EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE.
Held: Under these circumstances evil
dence was admissible TO show that PLAIN
tiffs had suffered loss from the delay
The next assignment is to the admis-
sion of testimony to prove that the ore
in the cars which were sde-tracked, was
received.
that it was Improperly rejected.
Held: The propriety of admitting 1t Is
very clear. The foreman and superin-
tendent could not agree No provision FOR
disagreement between them was made IN
| the contract The company declined ar
bitration, and the only other way OF set
| Ting the contention was by a resort 10
| the tribunals established for adjudication
! OF the rights OF parties. The jury could
| not decide the question of TACT, except
| upon evidence as to the character OF inc
ore. and evidence for this purpose Is
clearly admissible. The case is Wholly
unlike Condor VS.. S. s. S. r. Co.. IA watt
SO2 wherein the contract MADE the ehsi-
neer Of the railroad company the sole
arbiter Of all questions Of law or fact
| arising under II.
. The evidence having been properly
admitted. the jury were entitled to con-
slider it.
AS TO the Instructions:
Held: 1 1t is not necessary to recovery
for loss for protracted delay that the ue'
Law be the result of deception ana irduu
Actual fraud is not an essential lngredl'
emf to the breach Of a contract IL Ialiur'
to receive was unnecessarily protrdcIeu
or delay could have been avoided py ou'
diligence. the plaintiffs were entltieu u
al rNDg
recover for any loss they could sho" II
consequence of the delay
. Damages for loss from delay 10 re
coiye the ore and also for the prohu
~. would have been received, had the!
hoon allowed 10 deliver the amount con
tracted for. would not be a double re
coverv The object Of the law in awardill
darraoes is 10 make amends or repard
ton 70 nut the injured party in the sam
rosition so far as money can DO IT, d
be would have been in if the CONTRACT MAJ
been performed and he IS entitled 10 re
coyer all the damages resulting direcu'
from its violation.
Condemnation Rights
, CITY Of Charlottesville VS.. Maurys a.
Nvmed. Opinion by Buchanan D.
The Maurvs owned land on both SIDE
of Reservoir creek, where the Guy Pr
noses TO divert that creek Tor ihcreaslIl
q IFS water supply, the creek anu w
others which flow into the Maurys mn
pond. supplying the motive po"sI ~
r. tbe,,. erist-mill. Proceedings were IN
% -,t,',to1 Inv the CITY Council In the Count
. Court of AlbemaTle to condemn LOT 1t
e. rUrnoses the rights of the Maurys in Re'
ervoir creek and orders were entered
3 tho+ end The Circuit Court reverse
tbeeo orders. on the ground that IN
r county Court was without Jurisdlcuo
I unaer the charter of the city to condem
b ana appropriate the property rights =
the attendants in the water alone WIN
7 ou- condemnng the land through WHic
l II flowed. or some part of IL.
Held. This question was directly pre-
> scented and decided in Roanoke Clty VI
Rerkowitz. so Va, 6l6 where the Coui
held that nothing less than the zee cou,
p he taken. the requirement OF the s'dtu'
- is imperative that the fee shall De NealI
Z oxcent I'm the single case Of a turnplh
o o"ropa,v where an easement only is a
. CURED See Lewis on Eminent DOMAIN
= - 07s. Randolph on En-. DOM, sec. ~
:, | VA. Code sec. 1919.
. . While all private property IS ne
subiect TO the right of eminent oolliai
. that power lies dormant IN the Sta
= mil called into action by the laW-makll
u ,ou,er and then il can only be exercise
in the manner and upon the conuitlOl
= an5 terms prescribed. If the right TO e
j arcise II he conferred by a charter or sp
- cial statute. IL must be exercised IN a
cordance with the general law upon u
. s,hiect unless a contrary intention clea
- w appears. Coaling on Const. I'm "
y and f. r. Co. VS. A. and w. h 20,
n Va. 7SO: Lewis on En-. Dom'' SEES @''-
Construction of "A WILL
ID reeso VS.. KYLE. &c. Affirmed. opihi
10 by Harrison, }. ,. .ho dacre
tho jurisdiction of this court, oehieu
Tho anneree. may be conceded.
y 81 An my interest in the estate i
- oueath 10 my beloved vile, NJ &c
~ Also fifty shares of New YORK Cen'i
ond Uudson-River railroad slocA, ~
"a owned by me. Also, ali moneys Oh Yep
- IN the National Exchange Bank Vi 10y u.
&c bure standing to my ereul' VI ~ -
- name. III surviving my wlle' i1a'o ;. :,
IA henuest TO her sister, Virginia dSSoo
80 Tbe second clause bequeatns 70 n,s
ts ter. NJ. Kyle. nifty shares -
he railroad stock standing III hi9 ''"'N'
a. her and her heirs forever
g.. rho third clause-a like bequest as
y 90 his sister, Rebecca Henderson
!, Tha lower court held that appeha
10 .ool, an absolute estate In all the pl
- -, embraced in the firsrVlause d
49, Tho sisters each took the hIty shal
- .+oct beoueathed them, respective
y - - oacond and third clauses, unaHec'
- ~ -, other clause. rhe widow appea
60 - ,,,,irx that the first clause gave her
10 49,. ,barein mentioned and the moi
IN - ,anr absolutely; and during her ma
- !" mfo oil of the interest or pro