Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-12


10 embrace the land In controversy and
that 1t succeeded to whatever public
rights existed In the county of Norfolk,
the facts relied on to prove acceptance
OF the dedication, either by county or
city, were long subsequent to September,
1870 when the offer was withdrawn on
the day OF sale before any acceptance,
express or implied. by Norfolk county.
Not having been misled to its prejudice
by eppellees it cannot invoke estoppel
against them
the public, whether express or implied,
may be revoked before 1t has been form
ally accepted by competent authority. or
before others, upon the faith of 1t, have
been induced so to act as to render its
revocation unjust. The owner is 'es-
topped to assert no formal acceptance
where the public relying upon the mani
fest intent to dedicate have occupied the
property in such manner as renders it
unjust and improper 20 reclaim it; but
where no public nor private interests
have been acquired the mere user by the
public of the supposed street, etc, though
long continued, should be regarded as a
mere license, revokable at pleasure.
Harris VS.. Com. 20 Graft, $40; Buntin
VS.. Danvile, 90 Va, 205; Haldane vs..
Trustees, etc, q n. Y, 479
PRIORITIES
Osborne VS.. Big Stone Gap Colliery Com
pany. Reversed in part. Opinion by
Keith, Z.
The facts in this case, stated generally
are that the Colliery Company, owing
sundry people debts some of which had
become established liens, was placed in
the hands of a receiver, who was author
lied to issue receivers certificates, which
should constitute a first lien on all the
franchises and property of the company,
and requiring him 10 complete and ope-
rate the plant under the direction Of the
court. Two years thereafter another
decree was rendered, by consent of parties
represented by counsel, new receiver
appointed, and a new issue Of receivers
certificates authorized, adjudged to be
paramount TO the former series of such
certificates, and to all other debts and
liens against the company. Appellants
are non-residents had no notice of the
application for a receiver and authority
for the issue of certificates, and were not
represented when the receiver was first
appointed, nor in any way notified Of the
proceedings until order of publication was
completed, late in November. 1898. after
the receiver had been authorized TO issue,
and had in fact issued, a large number
of certificates. They in no way appear
in the cause till February, 1895. when they
filed an exception TO the commissioners
report of January, 1895.
Held: While courts Of chancery, In
proper case, have the power to issue re-
ceiver's certificates. which shall consti-
tute paramount lien upon the franchises,
earnings, property, &c, Of corporations
under their control, it is power which
should be exercised with the utmost eau
ton, prudence, and reserve. and never
without giving all interested the oppor-
tunity to be heard. Karn VS.. Rorer, s.
va, 754; Wallace VS.. Doumis. 81 y. s., 146;
Beach on Receivers, section $685.
While the trustee i'm a deed Of trust
5 held by the United States courts to
represent before the court the creditors
secured, such is not the case in Virginia.
The appellants, Witt and Watkins, are
properly before the court. and are en-
tiled to relief under Rule TX, as con-
trued in Nicholson VS.. Gloucester Charity
school and cases there cited.
Reversed as to Osborne & Co.. and as to
Witt and Watkins; affirmed in all other
spects.
CONTRACT OR NOT.
;Oisseau, trustee, &c, VS.. Fuller, &c.
Affirmed. Opinion by Harrison, j.
Case pending for settlement of an es-
ate There was filed before the COM
missioner. as a debt by appellant, as as
dgnee a claim for $1,000 damages for
allure Of deceased or his representatives
0 carry out this alleged contract: I'VE
ereby agree TO lease to Conrad. &c, our
warehouse. for a period OF five
ears. at an annual rental of
ZOO, payables in monthly instruments.
The above to be covered by regular
ease, subject TO approval by all parties
July signed by all parties.
Is this a completed contract. which can
le enforced2
Held: The whole question is one of in
ention. If the parties are fully agreed
here is a binding contract notwithstand-
ng the fact that formal contract is to
be prepared and signed; but the parties
must be fully agreed and must intend the
9ereement to be binding. Though fully
greed on the terms, il they do not in
end TO be bound until the formal con-
ract is prepared, there is no contract;
and the fact of the purpose 10 draw
formal contract is strong. Evidence that
he previous negotiation was Iot intended
TO amount TO an agreement Cl.rk Oh
Cont, 50.
Words of present demise will generally
make an actual lease If no future or more
-orrnal document appears to be intended
sspecially II possession be taken. But
strong the words. they Will not
constitute a lease If ii can be clearly In
ferred from the rest of the paper that |
he parties contemplated entering into a |
future lease. Taylor on Landlord and |
r section 50; VIM vs.. Bull, Oh. Div, |
,a-,2. Harrison VS.. Farmer. rs Ala, l57.
In the light of these principles. the con- |
,ludIng words of the paper under consid- |
ration Indicate that the regular lease"
rad vet TO be consummated.
A MURDER CASE.
Mcbride VS.. the Commonwealth. Re-
versed. Opinion by Keith, p.
Mcbride was found guilty OF murder
n the second degree, and sentenced 20
he penitentiary for eighteen years.
Writ Of error awarded by Judge OF
his court. There were fourteen assign
nents OF error. The materials ones, as
,elow:
The third. fourth, fifth, and sixth as
tgnments were as TO the admission in
violence OF conversation between
,itnsss and the deceased on the eve-
ing before the homicide
Held: The evidence should have been
xoIuded. AS TO the prisoner. II is res
nter altos acta, constitutes no part or
he subiect under investigation, Is not
onnacted with IL in time or place. was
I'd tn the absence of the prisoner, ana
- 80 hrouuht within none Of the ex-