The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1898-01-22
SUPREME COURT DECISION,
DeHendorf vs.. Humphreys and ITALIA
ZERO VS.. Mutual Life Insurance
COMPANY

company
The cases of Dezendorf VS.. Humpb-
reHS d Son and Lounsberrv VS.
Humphreys & Son, from the Court. OF
NV ana Chancery, in this city, which
was reversed by the Supreme Court of
Appeals at Richmond Thursday. were
OF great local interest.
INT. Croft gave to his daughter. Mrs.
De"ehdorf property for her sole and
separate use during her life, and al
ner death 10 be divided among her
chilaren. Her father provided that the
p.opeI,y should not be conveyed or
encumbered by his daughter. Mrs
loezendorf nude a deed of trust o.;
the rent and profits to secure Mrs
LpuhSDerry ct ais, and subsequently,
confessed Judgment in favor of GER
tain creditors. Other creditors
'i'urphreys & SOM brought sui.
against her and obtained Judgments.
Judge Martin held that the rCetric-
l'on against alienation prevented the
iced Of trust and the confessed iudg
inehls from taking effect. but thai the
!udSments Obtained against her nv
reaular suit bound the property Tn
me Court of Appeals il was contender
oy the deed OF trust creditor and those
~ whose favor she had confessed
!nushtShi mat the estate created by
ne VIII was a statuatOry legal estate
ahd mat the restrictions were not
Nal!u Tie court holds that II was an
equitable separate estate. ana as such
there could be annexed TO il such CON
uitIons against alienation. and also
mat the iulGm nj obtained againt,,
ner by regular sui, could not in the
race OF these restrictions be valid any
more than the confessed Judgments or
III" deed of trust
me result Is hat Mrs. Dezendorf
can enjoy This property during her life
from the claim Of her creditors, The
'aN !erS IN the case were MesSrs. Tun-
iai " Thorn, for I.ounsberry: Mr..
W IMAM H. White and Messrs. Chris
Ian christian. of Richmond for
lJcHendorf; Mcssrs Whitehu,;St and
hughes, for the creditors in favor Of
whom judgments were confessed. ana
Messrs. burroughs 6 Bro, for Humph-
| reys g. Son.
The Court of Appeals. in affirming
the case of the New York Life Insur-
ance company against w H. ITALIA
Lcrro from the Court Of Law and
Chancery. in this city. settles a pro-
tracted litigation, the case having been
tr1ed three times in this city. IT was
INST tried In the Corporation Court and
Judgment obtained by Mr. Taliaferro,
Dut Judge Brooke set the verdict aside
1t next came up In the Court of Law
ana Chancery ana the result was a
hung jury. The last trial resulted in n
verdict for Talia fcrro, md the insur-
ance company appealed The object
or the suit was to recover salary, about
$500 being involved. The Supreme
Court held that if a party object To
evidence and afterwards introduce the
same himself IT. Is no ground for re-
venSing the Judgment, though the evil
dence was Incompetent. The lawyers
in the case were Mr.. w. L. Williams.
| Tor Taliaferro. and AIessrs. Wake <
Ola, for the insurance company.
Among the other cases decided by
the court was that of Williams VS..
| Tomlin, from the Circuit Court Of
| Hanover county This case confirmed
| a right Of free ferriagc apptmtcnant Ia
| King William county farm, which
| had been exercised by Capt. r. w.
| Toml!n. or this city. the appellee. and
his ancestors" from 1856 10 the prcseAt
| time. Captain Tcmln defended his
own interest in the cGurts