Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-21
THE SUPREME COURT.
LARGE BATCH OF OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN YESTERDAY.
VISY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS DECIDED
r,irtccn Cases I'm which Various
o,estlons Of Law Are Passed Upon,
and statutes COnstrucd-Othcr Orr
dcrs Entered.


meme Court Of Appeals yesterday. Fol
lowing are brief digests OF the opinions
handed down;
-h,sapeake and Ohio Railway Company
VS. Chambers. Affirmed. Opinion by
Keith. p.
The company owns. occupies. and man.
,,fs "a dam on James river extending
fr,m the north bank TO shores Island;
r.r, Of the dam. called a guard bank,
extends partly across the island. d.
AYERS that company neglected to keep
tsc guard bank in good order. as in duty
bound. and permitting it to get out OF
order the island was greatly damaged
and rendered Of little value: that the
dam was originally constructed by the
canal company, and by virtue Of various
acts Of Assembly the railroad company
Rad succeeded 20 all its rights and re-
sronsihliiQes. Demurrer to declaration
oglrrulod. and no issue taken on the
aycrmCnt of transfer Of rights and re-
sr'rsiblitcs Of the canal company.
The defence mainly relied on was the
r,racmnauon proceedings when the dam
MAS built. These fail 20 disclose the sum
awarded or the particular elements OF
DAMAGE considered by the assessors. The
evidence tends strongly to show that the
card bank was wholly unnecessary to
the safety OF the abutmcnt. but rather
frflrccrtd IL: that a half acre was con-
demnel for the abutment, wholly I'M
necessary area. unless the guard bank
Or considered as constituting part of it,
There IS evidence that the effect Of the
guard bank was TO divert the water from
the island. and that while it was kept in
repair no serious damage was done by
tsc floods: that the canal company kept
t in repair. and the railroad company
having neglected to do so. 1t no longer
serves any useful purpose. and that the
land has been damaged 10 an amount
equal 90 the verdict.
Held: The case Is here as upon a ,Ie-
muuer to evidence Code. section 1889.
and the evidence is quite sufficient 10 sus-
tain the verdict.
SEQUESTRATION.
Frank &C. VS.. Peoples National Bank,
&c. Affirmed. Opinion by Keith. p
By the ninth clause of his will, L. d.
reefs the net income from a fund to be
paid over semi-annually TO his children
living at his death; "but he shall pay to
my son, James E.. only one-half as much
as 20 my other children" James f. was
largely Indebted. and his creditors issued
executions on their judgments against
him. In order to ascertain their several
rriorties and TO subject the fund to their
liens. the numerous execution creditors
fled their bill in the name of Frank on
behalf of himself and other lien creditors.
All parties in interest We're made de-
PENDANTS, and q decree entered appointing
a receiver. with directions TO collect from
The trustee under the will the sums ac-
Cruing TO James l.. under his fathers
VIII. pay costs of suit, and distribute
mOng mis- creditors according to the
rrorties asccrtained by the report Of
commissioner Appeal by James T.. and
certain creditors, on the ground that the
court should have decreed sale and not
he sequestration of the interest Of James
Held: The object OF the court and its
duty was to administer the fund TO the
best advantage of those entitled 10 it. To
-equestrate ito take each year the
nm accruing 10 James +. and apply il
fO the payments of his debts-is exact
Justice. All that is his enures to the
benefit of his creditors. A sale might or
might not realize a greater sum. 1t in
reduces an element Of chance; IL invites
buyer and seller 10 make contract of
hazard which a court of equity will not
DO unless il can be exacted Of ii as a
legal right.
The creditors resorted to a court Of
equity 10 enforce their demands They
must do equity and submit themselves 10 |
that measure of relief which that court. |
under all the circumstances. deems just |
and fair There is a judicial discretion |
n the courts as TO the administration or |
b fund like this, and when exercised it |
cannot be reviewed or reversed but Tor |
error appearing on the record. This re- |
cord shows nothing beyond the fact that |
Me court dealing with an interest af- |
ected by contingencies likely to influence /
ts market value. has seen fit TO seques-
rate rather than sell il.
DATE OF NOTE CHANGED.
schmelz Brothers VS.. Rix & Bentley.
Reversed. Opinion by Keith, Z.
hiX and b. made a note for 500, en-
l0rsed by Johnson & BOyenton, payable
20 Schmelz Brothers at their bank No
-ember l. 1893. The note was not paid,
and was duly protested. RiX. the man
.glng partner Of RiX * B., applied for
enewal of the note. which was allowed,
md November 18th he came 10 the bank
With two notes. each dated November
or 500 at six months-bOth endorsed as
lef0re The sole purpose Of the new
lOies was 10 take up the old. The teller
'oticed the date OF the 18th instead or
0rmer note matured. and after some
lesitation by G.. A. Schmelz, acting for
De bank, the date Of the new notes was
hanged 10 November LIST. which change, !
IS the evidence sufficiently shows, was
made with the knowledge and acGui-
sccnce Of Rix. To secure them a deed
If trust was given by RiX & B., de-
riding the notes as dated November
ath They were not paid at maturity,
ul the trustee advertised under the deed.
aie was enjOined and injunction per-
eiuated.
r0versy the whole sum secured-to-wit.
V-sO the jurisdiction Of this court at
aches.
? when all the parties to a bill or note
gree 10 "a change Of any OF its terms
hey cannot complain Of any such change
leht TO change as TO make the contract.
janiel NegO Insts., section lfOl.
O. Ina this case the deed OF trust is not
mere deed for the indemnity OF the
urety. HOpewell vs.. Cumberland Bank,
) Leigh. Yl) IL conveys property 10
rustec and pledges IT TOT the payment
be payment of two promissory nego-
able notes" which 1t proceeds 10 de-
SEPARATE ESTATES.
ezendorf vs.. Humphreys. etc; and
LOWnsberry. etc. VS.. Humphreys, etc.
Reversed opinion by keith, +.
Devise Of certain property TO married
be and separate use during her life,
ld al her death 10 be equally divided
mong her children. and 70 be Tor their
DE use and benefit None OF the
9pssry snail be sse eehyeyed an oi t the
n1 devised IN case OF DEAN OF oevlsee,
lall not be divided until her youngest