Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-18

- =
fraud and undue influence. Todd said ne
originally bought the lots with his own
monev but transferred them to his
mother. because he did not wish to hold
them i'm his own name. He AYERS that she
afterwards simply retransierred them 10
him.
The opinion afflyms the decision OF the
lower court, holding the deeds VOID. Inc
whole OF the evidence Is gone into, ana
thu character of Todd Is assailed very
vigorously.
Riparian Rights.
The Waverly Water Front and Improve
ment Company VS.. White ct. ais, IN
volved riparian rights, which are very
learnedy discussed by Keith, T., VINO
wrote the opinion. The case comes w
from the Hastings Court of Portsmouth
The lots which form the subject mat
ter of this suit form the shore OF the
Elizabeth river at Cranford's pay 'ne
lots owned by the appellants pelhs y"
the north side OF Portsmouth ana forinlhs
the south shore of the bay. WINE tnOSe
of the appellees form its west snore' Iho
two shore lines run nearly at risht ans'e
TO each other, so that the shofe hHeS %
the bay may be said to form lisn'
angle the hypothenuse Of when Is the
popt-Warden's lines running from the
northeastern corner Of the city OF fOltS-
mouth to the end Of the point on the
United States Hospital grounds, ana WIN
the dividing line between the CITY anu NV
county running diagonally throush !"
The appellees claimed by virtue OF
owning the lots on the right shore the
right to all the flats or bottom OF the
bay TO the Port Wardens line, 10 the
exclusion Of the owners on the south
shore, it being claimed That Original
grants and all subsequent grants were 10
"high-water mark" which gave no ripa-
rian rights, while the lots OF the appel
lees were bounded by the river and hence
rlprarian rights were included. The lust
ines Court took this view, but the SUI
preme Court holds that II erred. Judge
Keith goes into very learned discussion
OF the law involved.
Another Insurance case
Judge Keith also prepared the opillon
In National Life Association, Of Hartford,
rs. Hopkins's Administrator, ct ans
from the Law and Equity Court OF Klch-
mond. Hopkins's administrators sued III
the Law and Equity Court TO recover az
interest belonging to the estate Oh MS
intestate in four policies. for S2VoO eacH'
in the possession OF Thomas AhdeIsoh'
Robert Rountree. and two in the pos
session OF Peter Paul. These clalmed
the policies We're assigned 10 them by
Hopkins except that Rountree claimed
under one Lassiter to whom assignment
was made by Hopkins. The bill charI
that the only consideration for these as
signments was the payment OF the pre-
NUNS. which did not exceed Tor any vi
the policies more than so a year. ana
save TO that extent none OF the assishees
had an insurable interest IN the IKE oi
Hopkins.
Anderson. Rountree. and Paul have each
BROUGHT suit against the life ASSOCIATION
I'm the Circuit Court of Richmond TO re-
cover the policies, and that 10 protect
the estate of the intestate II Is heceS-
sary that the plaintiffs IN these actions
should be enjoined from collecting the
policies. The lower court ordered the
company TO pay $iS0S into the Planters
Bank, with interest from September -
1896. and reservlng all other questions LOT
future consideration. From TINS decree
the association appealed.
The opinion reverses the lower court,
and SAYS that such order will be entereo
as is necessary 10 dismiss the plaintlu
hill with costs 10 the appellants.
ParoI vs.. Written Agreement.
The opinion in Slaughter VI. Smither'
from the Richmond Chancery Court, was
written by Judge Harrison
on October -, 1894. W. q. Smither en-
tered into "a contract with p. NJ. Slaughter
TO take charge Of his drugstore, at NO
2j23 Nenable street, to run IL as MS OWL
to draw so "A month, and to allow all the
surplus over that amount TO go TO his
credit on a bond of $500, and that wnen
this was paid the business was TO pe
transferred to said Smltner. 1t was tur-
ther alleged that Slaughter verbally
agreed to remove from the city and dis
continue the drug business. especially IN
that nelghborhood. but that he afterwards
opened a drugstore in the immediate
neighborhood. Specific enforcement Of the
contract was asked. by the appellant be-
ing required to.discontinue the drug bust
ness on church Hill. and damages were
ais. prayed for. The appellant denied the
verbal contract. The court decided in Ia
NOr Of Smither
The Supreme Court reiterates the Oft