The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-17
OPINIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
Decisions in Only Two Cases Rem
dered on tuesday.
ADJOURNED FOR THE TERM.
The Court VIII Meet Again the Firft
Week in September at Staunton-
Cases Involving Competency
90 Contract-PrOcess OF Law
ADJOURNED FOR THE TERM.

Following are dlgests Of opinions hand
ed down by tho Supreme Court OF APP
peals last Tuesday at Wythevllle.
The~Court adjourned 10 meet AT Stauh-
ton the first week in September.
COMPETENCY TO CONTRACT.
Artrip VS.. Rasnake & Son. etc. Affirm
ed. Opinion BY Cardwell. J.
The errors assigned are.
l. That the wife was not competent 70
contract when she and her husband hiaue
and signed the deed Of trust. -,
z That q decree for a sale OF the lana
Of the wife should not have been entered.
Held /. No attempt was mace oy aps
pellant TO sustain her defence oy proof
EXCEPT on the issue OF insanity. She
had never been adjudged a lunatic. ana
the evidence adduced wholly failed 10
show a general arrangement whereby
The burden would he shifted. TO appel
lees 10 show her legal capacity to con,
tract when the mortgage was executed
and delivered. IL It shows Al any uine
en- incapacity TO contract I Green. eyi
sec. 81, 2 Ia, sec. 81: b1shburne ana
wife VS. Ferguscn's heirs. 81 Va 1918;
rho Ave persons present when she eS-
ecuted the deed all testify that appel,
liant had mental capacity 70 cOntEact ~,
90 important business al mat t,ne ns'a i.
FVidenca OF this character-those pres
en-. at the factum Of the deeo-~has q.
WAYS been held TO he % far more weight
and Importance than he opinion OF WI
nesses based upon the errat!c Conduct
ana eceentricities Of the party WIDEN 81 wh' %
Graft. I50; Mercer VS.. Kelson, 4 ~. 100
Under the second assignment IL Is con,
tended that appellant ana hsr nusV en-.
were partners; and gheIei9's u,aoa sa, "a
eontract with appellees binding her sep
arate estate for the stock OF lsoods: II not
partners, then the wife ~ surety Tor the
husband. and as such her lanus eould nor
be sold until the property "a me p bsfore
decree OF sale an account or the pfoD-
ertv owned by the husband vas necessa-
nv, and that II be sold first. ......4.-.
Held !. Appellant makes positiiV ,c s' ar.
or parcel in the~profts or the business.
and acted only as salesman when re-
uulred by her husband 70 90 so. rms
dlsposes OF the partnership contention. !,
2 Where no question or priority OF
Hens Is raised BY answer or otherwise:
II IL not error to decree a sale OF land
under mortgage or deed OF trust with
out A reference 70 commissioner 20 re-
port liens Where there are conn ns ,hs
proceeds OF sale 10 satisfy liens the rue
Is otherwise. Jaege vs.. Bossieux. 10
1viss one OF the notes secured by the
a new note given for the balance by AZ
trim and wife: Il is eontended that TINS
haiance ought not TO have been inciuu-
e<N as secured by the deed.
Held A mortgage or deed or trus, re-
mains a lien until the debt II was given
10 secure Il satisfied. and Is not anee. .
Cd nv inc charge OF the note, or by Civ
inc different instrument a. evidence
OF the debt Simpson VS.. Bishop, ETC.
81 Va. los; Jones ON mortgage Soc
W. DUE PROCESS OF Law.
Ueth Ms. CITY OF Radford. Reversed
Oplrion by Rely, J.
the agreed facts were thst at the last
frsessrlent> OF lands In the state lor TAX
sttor' made m 1870, Heth's lands were
valued az siS,4Jo and taxes We're Az
we're reasssssed for city levies In sss2.
under authority Of the charter. and
valued at SO s25. Application was 70
have the city leyies for iS22-oa aeateo'