The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-18

the courts ruling on #, and obtain the
benefit Of IL as originally framed. he
should have allowed the demurrer TO be
sustained and those counts 10 20 TOR
naught instead OF filing an amended de-
claratiou. Hopkins vs. Richardson,
Graft. 49,. 4s1: Darracott VS.. z. & o:
Railway Company. 81 va. 2S. 80: Harris
admir- VS.. n. & w Railroad Company
IS Va. $50.
The recital in the order Of court when
plaintiff asked leave to amend. that he
did so without waving objection 10 the
ruling as 10 the original declaration
does not affect the question. The 'esal
CONSEQUENCE was to waive the objection
whatever his intention. Ana. and Eng.
Encyclo. ri and Pr, S29-Co.
?. Since the case Of the b. & o. Rail-
road Company vs. sherman. 20 Graft w.
decided nearly twenty years ago. u has
been regarded as settled law that In ac-
tons OF tort IKE thar it is sum ccnt 10
describe the injury generally without set
ting out the defendants misconduct win
greater particularity than was done IN me
first count in that case. n. & w. Rail-
road Company VS.. Harman's admir- -
Va $50. 1852; S. A. l.. Railroad company
VS.. Joynes % Va. 3ji. %i; Richmond Lo-
conceive Works VS.. Ford q D. T. H.
zoe. $40.
3. The plaintiff having failed to allege
in what capacity he was on the train or
the receivers and to state fully the cir.
cumstances under which he was injured
the court was not called upon 20 pass
upon those questions upon demurrer II
could not do so properly until he EVIL
donce was In and It was asked for m
struotlons upon the law Of the ease.
AGENCY.
Jackson vs.. Pleasanlon. Amended and
affirmed. Opinion By Judge Buchanany
p. brought suit 10 compel j. IN convey
10 him a tract OF land in ioochand.
Boiling Hall" upon his paying j. the
amount advanced by him on the purchase
price alleging that when j. TOOK th' con-
vevance 10 himself he was the agent OF
p and therefore held the title in trust
for him. II does not clearly appear wheth-
err ] was P's agent when they went 70
look al the lands for sale IN GoOchand.
but il does appear that very soon AFTER
they aot there and p. had determined TO
buy. j. undertook to look after the ute
for him. obtain conveyance and advance
certain moneys In payment therefor IN
cese p failed 10 get il from his trus-
tees. Under Instructions from J, me
trustees OF =. being STOW, Boiling Hall
was conveyed to him and he gave 4 deco
OF trust thereon TO secure credit payments
March 2. 1895. This without the assent
or knowledge OF p; and the purchase by
!. i'm his own name must be regarded as
made for his principal for whom ne VIII
Nc considered .russcc Wexford VS.. cham
cellor. : Graft. 80; Mosely vs.. Puck. NUM-
20, unless the agreement OF March l5'
tS4, was binding on j. After the con-
v.vance 10 ]. and before March lJih. ana
while endeayOiing TO agree on me COM
rensation due J. for services rendered IN
Philadelphia or for services there ana IN
Goochland. j. told p. he had bought me
lands for himself and that he. Z. had 10
rights therein THIS +. denied and they
separated. on the 18th OF March j.
agreed to sell the property to p. Tor 81
900. p. t'stifying that he believed INC
nrorerty had cost that sun ana j. thaI
he informed him 1t cost only slS-OD ana
that the excess was 10 pay Thompson
through whom the purchase was made
for his services, etc. and he relies upon
he agreement as settling the rights OF the
parties and conclusive OF this coh'fo-
versy. ,,.
with his principal and sell to him prop
ertv which he is authorized 10 buy for
him proyided there is no deception or
concealment on his part but he must make
a fulJ and fair disclosure OF all the facts
and circumstances within his knowledge
in any way calculated TO enable the prln-
clpal to Judge OF the propriety oil the
transaction. Mechem. on Agency sec
.es. Amer. and Eng. Encyclo. Law
,osi ard i'm a controversy OF the kind the
burden OF proof is on the i'ent 10 snow
mai the principal was fully informed on
OH facts within his knowledge ana the
re,fset fairness OF the TRANSACTION. IL
1852. I,eakle VS.. Bailey. Brak IS lnls
the anpelant hns wholly failed 70 90.
and the agreement OF March - Is not
binding on the appellee.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith. P.--crabtree vs..
ola Dominion Building and Loan Asso-
citation. Circuit Court Of Pulaski county
Reversed. .
Ware ys. Bankers Loan and Ivestment
Co Circuit Court Roanoke county. he-
yersed in favor Of appellee.
smoot VS.. Peoples Perpetual Ruiiding
and Loan Association. Circuit Court OF
Roanoke Affirmed.
Gaines VS.. Merryman. Circuit Court OF
Henrico comfy. Reversed.
City OF Lynchourg VS.. wallace. Cor
poraton Court. city OF Lynchpufs' he'
yersed
Judge John w. Riey.-Rochecharlie VS..
Rochecharlie. Corporation Court, city OF
Lynchburg. Affirmed.
Booton VS.. Bottoms exor * ais. CIR
cult Court OF Madison county. Affirmed.
Nottinghams admr. vs. Lynchourg
Trust ami Savings Bank. Law ana
Equity Court. city OF NortoiK' he-
yersed.
Brooke. clerk. vs.. Turner Corporation
Court. city OF Roanoke. Reversed.
Judge John \. observation-disclosures
VS. c. & o. Railwal Co Circuit Court OF
Culpeper county. Reversed.
Supervisors OF Nottoway 'ounty vs. y.
L. Powell ard town OF crewe. Circuit
Court OF Nottoway county hevsrseo.
Jackson VS.. Plessanton. Circuit court
Of Goochland county. Amended anu
affirmed.
Judge George NJ Harrison. -Chewnins
& Sands VS.. Wilkinson. Circuit court OF
King William county. Reversed.
Burrows VS.. Smith. treasurer. circuit
Court of cu:pel.er county. Anrmed.
shiDman VS.. Fletcher. Peutlon 70 re-
hear, retltlon refused.
Todd VS.. sykes. Motion to Increase
supersedeas bond overruIed.
Towlkes W. Southern Railway Com