Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-10
DIR HIGHEST COURT.
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN AT
wYTHEyILLE ON THURSDAY.
SEVERAL INTERESTING CASES.
r..uItnnt Trust--PRrtieS 10 Trust
pcIlnqucnt Landslide Jurisdiction.
Yocncs-Proper Parties, Prioritics,
Xc.-Nnny Points OF Law Covered.

Following are diges;s OF opinions hand
81 down by the Supreme Court OF Appeals
a., Wy,acllia last Thursday:
Francis SIS cline. Sc Reversed. Opinion
tv CarlwcL !.
NARY Francis acquired 5000 under the
will OF her second husband. which was in
vested ln land conveyed TO her third hus-
I'm. IN trust tor her sole and separate
... They afterwards separated, and ar
t.- much manipulation, and many deeds
fs. Rcro never recorded. a deed was
,..rv completely executed and recorded
fv Francis. his wife writing, conveying
.rs land from Francis in his own right.
md MS trustee for his wife. 90 Cline. the
WIGS son boy a former marriage. This
land was afterwards exchanged for other
lands. also conveyed to Cline. The evil
re--. tends 90 prove that Cline executed
f-.nots Tor 5000 90 his mother. to be dis
charged at any time by reconvcying the
lra I'D Der or selling Sc. and rcinvesting
~. proceeds in other land for her. This
(! t.. conclusion reached, though there
g, much evidence iu direct conflict there
v. (Which Is Ciscredited by the court
i1...U ut the circumstances of the seve-
81. r...4gtious).
I.. I Notwithstanding the second
tr.. ves conveyed 90 Cline. appellant
US t.a real and beneficial owner He
undertook. as her agent, first TO get a
conveyance OF an other tract from her
husband and trustee. and then TO ex-
DANCE that for the second tract. in
'.H instances he took a conveyance OF
ri. le.al title 20 himself. and these facts
hing shown. establish a trust I'm him for
,.a use Of the appellant. 1t matters not
r.lstHo. resulting or an implied trust;
'... arc founded on the presumed inten-
zion of fIH parties. as both arise by opCr-
alton OF l.W upon the transactions of the
rr...s. and tac authorities generally con-
a.. that both may be established boy parol
evidence B1rst VS.. Male &c. 2S Graft,
as. Bank Of United States VS.. Darlington,
L..en. .f5, Phelps VS.. Seely, p Graft,
EE. Perry on Trusts, section l24.
Another feature Of this case: After the |
exchange OF lands Cline took possession. !
Is mother requested him TO convey the |
lana t0 her. and gave him written notice |
ID deliver possession TO her. He refused
81. do either. and thcrcupun She filed her
1H rr.yug that Cline be required 10 4
,...t. tins land TO hen She forwards /
s.H.I and acknowledge before justice !
. -.r.r setting forth The tendency Of her /
..t. thai fun satisfaction had been made |
4. l.-. that, therefore, she released all |
r..lt. Nc.. in The land. that She had fun /
Iteration for making the release, and /
s.r... tl have her suit dismissed. At the /
I..t term the case was dropped from the |
docket the decree appearing TO have been |
entered as matter Of course. 1t was not
n...uttI Oh by complainant or her coun-
S.. u.r was the presence Of either noted,
SID f.r as fEs record disClOses. In subse- |
o..- I.cati0l by another party, Mrs. |
francis comes iu 10y crosse bill and sets
ont u effect that the paper signed and
a.Iruw..llad by her was obtained 10y
fraud. that tine contents Of the paper were
Iusr.rr. u,ad 90 her, that she never read
&c.. and d.I not know what IL contained,
arI praying that tho transaction be de-
Car.I NAH and void; that she be remit
tsI 90 DER rights. and that Cline be com
PEELED tI convey the land TO her IL Is In
sisted Iy arlaloc's counsel that the de-
c..e d.sm.s-ug the suit upon the exhibit
ton uf tls paper signed and acknowledged
ly Mrs Francis was binding on her as
confirmation of what had gone before,
lut as said ly Keith, p. IN the Norfolk !
end Western Railroad Company VS.. Mills
d. Fairfax. 81 Va. Gn, there is no instru-
mont So solemn, 10 Judgment or decree
sl binding but that II fraud in its pro-
.uremeut be alleged and proved it ceases
.9 protect the wrong-docr or 20 obstruct !
Zoe injured iu the assertion of their rights. |
Held. When person asseuts that lidu-
y ry relations be established between him
md another tho law imposes the duty Of
1 dealing with the trust subject that his
conduct and transactions viii stand the
esq of the closest strUIuy. II a party's |
light 90 lmpclch "a tranFaction be conceal
I from him. or a free disclosure be not !
made 90 him of every circumstance which
g S. material 20 him % know, or If the |
.t Doe under pressure or c0nstraint or the |
Xcrc.se Of undue influence, or under the
.'usl0u that the original transaction Is
hiding on him. or If 81 be merely a con-
rrlti0u Of The original transaction, the
nGrmati1n operates as nothing. II the
uGG- influence still remains, or is simply
continuation. 81 ne has not fun knOwl-
'ga of all the material facts and of his
W1 rights 40 act OF confirmation, how
yer formal. is CTectual. Ferguson VS.
.r.rl rs S. T.. r.. 3g7; Cumberland Coal ! J
.u7ny ys. sherman % Md, III;
d1rd rs. Girod. 4 How, 500; Broadus '
s. Bs0adus Cali, SO.
. Courts Of Equity delight to follow !
nos. property into whatsoever guilty J.
and it may TO- There are no innocent /
I
procurement OF the agreement having c
n proved, the decree below must be C
Eersgd v
PARTIES TO WRIT OF ERROR. I
Petition for mandamus to compel the =
y OF EajlJrd ana its COuncil-naming
a m.mbtrs-to levy taxes 90 pay inter- q
e ou bonds of tho city held by petition y
. Tho city did not answer The men, Il
H. I
sa in the East Ward one those in the -
, another Court below held answers .
Efficient. and awarded peremptory ! IL
glHmus, writ Of error thereon. "
I..i: The writ of error was improperly 4,
aroei. Plaintiffs In error were not !
rites except as members Of the Council II
s corporate capacity. The duty 20 /
reformed was corporate duty, and : -
p Council. the body created and organ =
tar tae express purpose Of doing this ~
80 and others. IL the members of tho u
.u. failed TO obey the court, the dis U
..ut could have been punished for ~
tempt but Il was none the less an a.
..r 90 the Council IN its corporate ca u
..g Ialvcnworth Co. ". Selcw, 50
S.. c1i. . Dillon Munic. Corp. Sec. 96l. -
The members Of the Council desired ~
have the Judgment reviewed by this 90
.t they could do so only by applying .,
writ OF error In their corporate, not -
their Individual. capacity, nor as rep 81
natives of either ward; for in these ~
ac.aes they were not parties 10 the -
ion. Code. Sec. 1854; Board of Su- .,
usors Culpcper Co. vs.. Norrell, 70 -
TO-, 49, dismissed.
DELINQUENT LANDS. 70
wn Vs. Christian Clerk. Reversed. re
ONION by Harrlson j. hi