Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-02
might have discovered and urged at the

why he had killed the deceased, he re-
piled that the deceased said that he was
not AFRAID OF his shooting him, and i be
ID II any negro shall say that TO me-
NO one would claim that the negro's
statement was any provocation at all.
much less an excuse for taking his life.
The effort TO show that the defendant
was not responsible for his acts wholly
failed. The evidence does show that for
many years he had been accustomed to
drink heavily at times, and was drinking
at the time the offence was committed;
but II also shows that he was not under
the Influence OF liquor on that occasion
10 such an extent that he did not know
what he was doing or that he did not
know right from wrong. The verdict Of
the jury was manifestly right under the
law and the evidence, and the judgment
must be affirmed"
The Question of Agency.
Day VS.. National Building and Loan As
ISOLATION. Affirmed Opinion by Keith,
=.
A loan to the Blairs by the association.
70 be repaid in monthly instruments.
secured by deed OF trust on land. The
land sold by the Blairs 10 r. and D., who,
with the consent Of the association. as
sumed the payment OF the amount I'M
paid on the loan. They sold 10 appellant,
who, before purchasing, applied to White,
| collecting agent of the association, to as
certain the balance due on the loan
| originally made to the Blairs. and her
contention Is, that White reported balance
at some $500. which she assumed
20 pay the association, and paid Il. and
ID. the difference between that sum and
the agreed purchase price. question
arose after payment TO Is. and d. as TO
amount due the association, and White.
as he states. at the request Of appellant
wrote the secretary OF the association,
November 3, 1892, in New York. and on
November 18th Of that year the secre-
tary wrote appellant. informing her in
| detail upon the whole subject as TO the
| sum necessary to satisfy the association
as to the loan. At her request, in Octo-
Der, 1894. a statement was made 10 her
| by the association. showing a balance
still due Of $2,153. Appellant continued
TO pay all dues and assessments on the
stock issued to the Blairs till the sum
mer of 1895-thirty-six payments OF 80
each. aggregating SOS. She then re-
fused TO make any further payment, and
filed her bill, asking for relief on several
grounds, all of which were refused, and
decree against her for S2,6D.S.
Held: Whites agency was TO receive
and receipt premiums and dues payable
city Of Roanoke. His agency was limited
to those subjects, and he had no power
to make the statement attributed to him.
and the association is not bound by IL, II
made.
O. The act Of an unauthorized agent
may be adopted by the principal, and II
the benefit be accepted with knowledge
of the facts the principal will be estopped
to deny the agents authority. But rat-
fcation rests upon and implies knowledge
on the part of the principal and there
is nothing to show that the association
had any knowledge Of the alleged act or
its agent prior TO this suit, nor any evil
dence that It had knowledge Of the alleged
representations.
3. The prayer for a personal decree by
the answer is chiefly relied on by opel
liant as binding the association TO make
good the alleged representations by
White-citng owens VS.. Boyd Land COM
pany. 95 Va. $50, in support of the CON
tention. That case illustrates the tani-
liar principle that where a person seeks
to take the benefit by suit or otherwise
of a contract made by an unauthorized
agent he must assume the burden with
the benefit. This is no such case. Appel
liant bought land bound by A lien 70 APP
pelee, and assuming that. its collecting
agent made the alleged statement, and
that il induced her TO make the purchase
and assume payment Of the debt, yet the
result for which appellant contends does
not follow. Appellee is not bound by the
unauthorized act Of White, OF which IL
was ignorant, and the prayer for per-
sonal decree does not operate by way OF
estoppel OF otherwise TO prevent denial or
the agency. There Is no fraud on It's
part. and no injury results TO appellant
Of which
been granted. If proceeds OF sale satisfy
the demands of the appellee. the question
will never arise; If they do not, and as
ISOLATION seeks 20 enforce personal Ia
bilitv. IL will be then time TO inquire IL
the representation was made and, II SO
was the association bound by 1T. The
PRAYER for the personal decree may never
become a living issue, and 1t would De
strange, indeed, If a rejected prayer
should be found eillcacious to defeat an
otherwise incontestable right
Judge James Keith +.
Scotts Administrator VS.. cameron
Administrator. Circuit court Vi AI4i4leiSt
county. Affirmed.
Day VS.. National Mutual Building and
Loan Association. Hastings Court city
of Roanoke. Affirmed.
Judge John a. Buchanan.
Hite VS.. Commonwealth. Writ Of error
IA the County Court Of MeckIenburg.
Affirmed. .,.
Rogers VS.. Pattie, trustee. Circuit
Court Of Roanoke county. Reversed
Judge George NJ. Harrison.
Roanoke Street Railway Company VS.
Hicks, trustee ClIcuAI OOu'' Va
city. Reversed.
Floods Administrator VS.. Hutter. Cor
noration Court, city of Lynchburg. Re
versed.
damus awarded.
Christian VS.. Taylor. clerk. Writ Of
mandaIflus denied.
Conrad VS.. Conrad Circuit Court OF
| Danville. Appeal, etc. No bono.
billiard VS.. billiard. Circuit court Oh
Nelson county. Appeal etc. NO pond
Choatbam's Administrator VS.. Aestrop's
.S,,inistrator. Circuit Court OF Nelson
oountv Appeal allowed. No bond.
Sbackett etc. VS.. Roller. Circuit Court
If Rockingham county. Appeal ETC.
Bond, $500. . -. VIZ
o,nta pvrites Company. Chancery Court
citv of Richmond. Appeal etc bohu'
500. c,uo,,,. Count ne
nS,,,nobam county. Appeal refused.
JJa,,nocE VS.. Commonwealth. Corpora
,,on Court of Lynchburg. Writ OF error
AIso p Mosby & Co. VS.. Catlett q
Jenkins Circuit Court Of Tazewell county
Appeal refused: nj. ,,s Walton
Citizens National Bank VS.: walton
Petition TO rehear Petltioh leIet".,o,,
pnrr,ss VS.. National Life Association
80 Hartford. Conn Argued by George
WoIntosb for appellant, and Edmund
pendleton for appellee and continued
until to-day. cniuar