The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-03

or casa must be made 20 Justify an up
pellate court in disturbing an order grant
ing a new trial than where II has been
refused. Barton's Law, Pr. 725-s; Rum
ners heirs VS.. Hill. 81 W. Va, tSs.A-L
. The evidence upon the first trial does
not warrant this court In reversing the
action OF the Circuit Court In granting
new trial
3. There was no error IN the proceed
ing to the prejudice OF the plainun upon
the second trial.
DIssEIsIN OF COTENANTS.
Johnston &C., VS.. Virginia Coal and
Iron Company. Affirmed. Opinion oy
Harrison, J.
This Is case involving the title TO
land patented In 1895. and title now as
serted by the alleged heirs or one OF the
original grantees. alleging that they are
tenants In common with those claiming
TO be the owners OF the interests OF the
other grantees under the patent. These
interests were sold for taxes In 1886 TO
Olinger. and there have been many allen
atoms OF the lands to various parties
since that time the appellees being the
latest purchasers.
Held. The evidence abundantly shows
that Immediately after Ohnger obtained
the deed from the clerk under the tax
sale in 1896, he took actual possession,
and that he and those claiming iihoer
Chim have been In open, notorious ana
continuous possession, claiming and deal
ing with the whole as their own from
that day to this. When the appellee be-
came the purchaser in 1852, by metes ana
bounds Il was q stranger, and therefore
could not have occupied any relation OF
trust and confidence to tho appellants.
The deed from Hyndman. wac had
regular chain Of title running back to
Olinger) dated May 6, 1882, conveying the
entire tract by metes and bounds 10 the
Virginia Coal and Iron Company, gave
that company color Of title for the whole
boundary.
n n purchaser takes the conveyance OF
the whole estate from one tenant IN COM
mon and enters Into exclusive posses
sion under such conveyance. claiming
title 10 the whole, this is an custer OF the
other tenants: and the grantee so enter
ing and claiming title may rely upon MS
adversary possession II continued sum
cient period TO bar the recovery by tho
other tenants Buchanan VS.. hing' -
Graft. 422. Inasmuch as appellee was
stranger when 1t took conveyance Oh
the whole estate from the ahehees OF
Olinger and took exclusive possession
claiming title TO the wnole, IL mas
right TO rely upon its adversary nosses-
sion. and Is in no sense tenant IN eoin-
mon with appellants
A Court OF Chancery therefore hao 10
jurisdiction 10 entertain suit OF appellants
for partition. and the bill was prperly
dismissed. IL Il had had jurisdiction the
result would be the same, the appehee
having had open, notorious and uninter
rupted possession Of the whole tract
more than ten years before suit begun
and tho claim OF the appellants Il any
being barred by the statute
A QUESTION OF LACHEs.
Fonnen US. zimmerman. Reversed.
Opinion by Rely. J.
Action for balance duo on premium
rate for life insurance. Defence that
policy did not have appended thereto as
agreed. a certain printed slip signed by
the secretary OF the company
There was no conflict I'm the evidence.
Along with the policy was the printed
slip. hut not signed by the secretary.
on the receipt OF the policy, defendant
not observing that slip was not signed
nor looking 70 see that u was signed
accepted without examining It, and PAT
Il in his box ar the bank: and did not
know that the slip was unsigned till ar
ter this action was brought.
In the meantime no had paid one rate
FOR 1861 and made two small payments
on the note sned on, besides writlre
several letters promising 10 pay balance
Never bef0~e suit did he offer 20 rosc1c
because slip was not signed az he assert
cd at the trial It should have been. 81
make anv complaint TO the company OF
the plaintiff Of the omission.
Held 1t was the imperative duty OF th'