Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1898-03-18
COURT OF APPEALS.

vestment Company, Circuit Court of
Roanoke county reversed, in favor of
appellee.
Smoot vs.. Peoples Perpetual Building
aud Loan Association, Circuit Court Of
Roanoke; affirmed.
Gaines VS.. Merryman, Circuit Court
Of Henrico county reversed.
City of Lynchburg vs. Wallace, Cor
poration Court, city of Lynchburg re-
versed.
Rochecharlie vs.. Rochecharlie, Cor
poration Court, city of Lynchburg; af-
frmed.
Booton vs. Booton, executor, Circuit
Court of Madison county affirmed.
Brooke, clerk, vs. Turner, Corpora
ton Court, city of Roanoke; reversed,
Kinchhead vs. Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company, Circuit Court of
Culpeper county reversed.
Jackson, vs.. Plessonton, Circuit
Court of Goochland county; amended
and affirmed.
Chewing & Sands vs.. Wilkinson,
Circuit Court OF King William county
reversed.
Burrows vs. Smith, treasurer, Circuit
Court of Culpeper county affirmed.
Nottingham's admr. vs. Lynchburg
Trust and Savings Bank. Law and
Equity Court city of Norfolk.
Shipman's vs.. Fletcher. Petition to
rehear. Petition refused.
Todd vs.. Sykes. Motion to increase
supersedeas bond overruled.
Fowlkes vs. Southern Railway Com
pany. Law and Equity Court, city OF
Richmond. Writ OF error awarded.
w. & w. R. r. Co. vs. Graham. Cor
poration Court city of Roanoke. Writ
of error and supersedeas.
Baylor & ais. vs. Fukerson's exors.
Circuit Court of Lee county. Appeal
and supersedeas.
Mason vs.. Mason. Circuit Court of
Russell county. Appeal AMI superse-
IDEAS.
Cottrell vs. Watkins. Circuit Cour.
of Henrico county. Appeal and su-
persedeas.
Cullop vs. Leonard and ais. Corpc
ration Court of Bristol.
DAVIS vs.. New York, Philadelphia
and Norfolk r .ilway Company. Writ
of error and supersedeas.
Robertson VS.. Breckenridge's exor.
and ais. Circuit Court of Botetourt
county. Appeal and supersedeas.
Thompson, etc., vs.. Monumental
Loan Association of baltimore Circuit
Court of Lynchburg.
Newport News, Hampton and Old
Point Dew. Co. VS.. Newport News
Street Railway. Writ of error to the
law and equity court, Richmond city.
Richmond and Manchester Railway
Co. vs.. city of Manchester. Hastings
court, city of Manchester. Writ OF
error awarded.
Manchester Railway and Improve
menG Company vs.. city of Manchester.
Circuit court of Manchester. Writ of
error awarded.
Williams vs. Huff ct ais. Circuit
court of Roanoke county. Appeal and
supersedeas.
Jones vs.. Jones' exor and ais. Cir
cult court of Mecklenburg county. APP
pesl and supersedeas.
Mcbride vs. commonwealth. Writ
Of error awarded to the county court of
Patrick county.
Jackson vs.. commonwealth. Writ OF
error and supersedeas to the county
court of TsZewell county.
Kent's admr. vs.. Woods sdmr. and
ais. Corporation court city of Bedford.
Appeal awarded.
Iaege and ais. vs. Clarke and ais.
Circuit court OF Tazewell county. Writ
of error refused.
Street VS. Broadus, etc. Circuit Court Of
Essex County. Writ of error awarded. Bond
500.
MeCabe and ais vs.. Goodman and ais. Cir
cult Court OF Louisa county. Appeal and
supeisedeas. Bond 500
Chapman, receiver VS.. Virginia Real Estate
Improvement Company. Circuit Court of
Tazswell county. Writ of error and superse.
IDEAS. Bond $500.
First National Bank, of Lynchburg, VS..
Whitman and sls, Circuit Court of Pulaski
county. Appeal refused.
Gipin VS.. Bryce. Law and Equity Court
city of Richmond. Appeal refused.
Wysong's administrator vs.. N. W. &. Z.
Co. BustiDgs Court city of Roanoke. Writ
of error refused.
Boyd, trustee, Vs. Radcliffe, etc Circuit
Court of Buchanan county. Appeal refused.
Rangeey's administrator vs. Southern Rail-
way Company. Argued by B. B. Munford.
ESQ.,. for defendant in error, and L. 9. Berk.
ley jr -, for plaintiff in error and submitted.
Washington, Alexandria and Mount Yer
non Electric Railway Company Vi. Quail.
Argued by J. B. Cation for plaintiff and con.
tinued.
Next cases are Nos 5S and SO; stoneburn-
or, ETC., vs. Motley, etc., and Metropolitan
Life Insurance Com any vs. Rutherford.
Three of the decisions were suits
against building end loan associations,
in which the plea of usury was set up.
The decisions OF the court in these
cases are growing more steadily against
the companies along this line. The
transactions affected by them are most
ly old ones.
The most interesting case decided
was that of Burrows vs. Smith from the
Circuit Court of Uulpeper, involving the
question as to whether a debtor own
ing national bank stock is entitled TO
have his indebtedness deducted from
the value of such stock before it is as
sessed for taxation. The court says it
is clear that no such right exists; that
bank stock is property, to be assessed ct
its value like all other property; not an
evidence of debt due the owner of it
within the meaning of the act OF 1889
80. The court also holds that this act