The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-12


'----------------.--------.-
------------------ -----------------------
The appellants witt and Watkins ara
properly before the court, and are en-
titled to relief under Rule TX. as con-
strued In Nicholson vs. Gloucester Char
ity School. and cases there cited.
Reversed as 10 Osborne & Co, and ms
70 Watt and Watkins; affirmed in all
other respects.
CONTRACT OR NOT
Boisseau, Trustee sc. vs.. Fuller. &C.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Case pending Tor settlement or an
estate. There was filed before the com
missioner as a debt by appellant, as as
signee, a claim for 81 100 damages FOR TINS
alleged contract: "Wc hereby agree 70
lease TO Conrad. ETC.. our warehouse
for a period of i've years al an an
nu1l rental Of $1,000, payable In monthly
instruments. The above 70 ne COW
cred by a regular lease subject to APP
prevail by all parties duly signed by an
parties. Is this a completed contract
which can be enforced?
Held: The whole question Is one or IN
tention. II the parties are lllly asleSa
there IS a binding contract, notWitnslah9-
ing the fact that a formal contract ~ 70
be prepared and signed: but the parties
must be fully agreed. and must Intend me
agreement 20 be binding In9ush luilS
agreed on the terms 81 they do not In
tend 40 be bound until the formal con-
tract is prepared. there ia no contract
and The fact or tho purpose To uIfM
"A formal contract IS strong evidence thet
the previous negotiation was not intend
"a % amount 20 an agreement. clark on
Words Of present demise will Gcner-
ally make an actual lease n no Iutlre OF
more formal document appears TO De lu-
tended. especially if possession De taken
But however strong the words, they VII
not constitute a lease If II can ne cleall.
inferred from the rest OF the papet .l
future lease. TAYLOR on Landlord ana ~,
sec 30. VIM " Bull en-. DaV. %J-5-'
Harrison V. Farmer 20 Ala. 1jl.
In the light Of these principles. me con
sheraton indicate that the regular
lease" had ve- 20 20 contaminated.
RES ADJUDICATA.
Sims ". Tyr4c. Affirmed. opinion by
Judge Buchanan
ton OF the decree in this case heretofore
affirmed 1y this court
Held. Tho question raised was neces a- .
ri'y involved I'm the former appeal ana
expressly raised upon o. pettioh 10
hear. and must De regarded as res ac.u-
dfCat9 III would ie grossly inequf aple
10 make the recovery OF the party Wnos'
property had been Improperly soii ug "a
other depend upon its value Whcil su,u
i,,- the court instead OF The date or SAFE
la. he vgrong-doer. If tho property hao
doDrcciate1 the loss would fan uNon tIt
DrOpcrf v-OWuort TT lt h'd hppI' .i.,-f
would receive more than ne War 'lel-l-D
10 T-Don the facts n the case INIrc W.
entitled fo recover from O'Gorman 500"
that being ono-tenth OF the race N1,.- Vi
the stocks and bonds received ny ~ V so,
man for the property, thtie o-L'7 ,,t,..5
donco that the stocks etc. so received
and opnr0prlatod 10 his own use were n0i
worth their flce value. ~ nol WoI-I
mat O'Gorman. OF those claiming, un1e.
him should have shown IT, ~" w.
failed 20 do so they musf suH-r lho cum
SEQUENCE Of their own negligence
CONTRADICTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Robineon's Administrator v Dininny.
AFFIRMED Opinion by Judge BuCnandh'
The evidence I'm this case is an tIdt on
the plaintiff. and Is very nle5li.i,,, ~
unsatisfactory as 10 tne So.ie-' t,ittod
me premises when deceased was hlile1.
He was engaged In cleanluS ~ q" go
from the bottom. Material rom 10y ~
feU on him and killed him Was noC " ~
danger so obvious that Il We hh1,MI
bi,, or easilv dfeoornihIe be- him. lie hal
beincd 10 clean out the tdlolnlhE aldls
I'm, The TON and mus. haze known Una,
II the foundation of me mas On i'i,,,l,,oj
accumulated IN this shamt w-Ie l.li l ~, ~
there was danger OF US ial .,.,,, .'fs, Tie
two shafts. Deceased was nineteen years
Of age. of ordinary iUtcIi erncr. NJ " ". ~
Cd i'm coal mines. and helped 20 Giean ~ e
me other shaft and is presumed no NV ~ ~
known the practical euectS OF w - -.
~ gravitation. Such knowledge ~ H0'
confined 20 experts " l., 10. tho
Hold. The general principle IS ny s ~
master shall use ordinary care en' r,ioce
rence 10 provide n reasonably So p.bot
for the servant 70 work an. Als3. -, nc 80
The servant assumes all ordinary Ils ,n,so,. III
the service he enters. ana; az a - ~,
riile ali risks from causes known 70 u, III, III,
or readily discarnible by a person ~ a- AZ
age and capacifv in the exercise o. "aG -s
narv care. McDonalds Adm v. ~ ~ a,c
w p w Co. % Va; the be-,uh Ei''0
"a. v Martins Admir-. 93 va, ~ an
n is hard 10 understand why Any a. have
riover would be so inhuman as 10 H.
Ne work dones as IN this case, VIZ 81
there was a safer and a peter w. 49,
rrbv any servant should work WneIe ~
danger was so obvious ana liz ~ from
p,,t the courts can furnish 70 reilsl I -
s,ch inhumanitv and such tony. W va" ,,,,,
Ger being obvious when the servlcgg "a 80
entered into The Court has slruN.It. -
reach y conclusion different from u Ter b-
,be circuit Court hut cannot DO so WIN
ont violating settled rules or VI laW .cO1vr