The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-10-01
CANNOT ATTACH
THE UNIVERSITY
Tie Mechanics Lien Law Does Not
Apply to lis Buildings.
SAYS THE SUPREME COURT.
The Session Closed for the Term at
Staunton Last Wednesday and the
Decisions Were Handed Down
on That Day Divorce Case.

STANTON, VA, Sept. ~39-special.-
The decisions for this week in the su-
preme Court Of Appeals for Virginia were
handed down last Wednesday. that being
the closing day Of the term.
one of the most interesting cases OF gen
eral interest decided during the term was
hat Of Phillips against the Rector and
Visitors Of the University of Virginia, ap-
pealed from the Circuit Court of Abe
marie county sustaining the demurrer Of
the appellee and dismisslng the bill.
This suit was Instituted 10 enforce a
mechanics lien asserted on the buildings
of the University Of Virginia. Judge
Rieiey in delivering the opinion Of the
court says: 1T is a well settled rule that
public property used for public purposes
Is not liable % sale for the payment Of
debt. To allow ii TO be done would there
by annihilate the public usage.
For this reason public policy forbids a
lien on public property. a lien up0a pro-
perty implys the right TO sell It for the
payment of the lien but public property
not being liable TO be sold for the m
of debts a mechanics lien cannot be as
serted upon II unless expressly author
lied by law. This is the general current
Of decisions" The court holds that the
mechanics lien laws of this State do not
In terms embrace public buildings or
structures and therefore under the law
as generally expounded a mechanics lien
cannot be acquired on buildings erected
by the State, fits counties or cities. for
public uses. The court further decided
fhuf fhn TTnfNraruFf~ - NF4u-f,4.
public and not a private institution and
that its grounds and buildings are public
and not private property. And conse-
quentiy no mechanics lien could attach
to these buildings.
DIVORCE.
L. D.. Engleman against Mollle L. En-
gleman: Suit brought by the appellant in
the Circuit Court of Rockbridge county
TO obtain a divorce a vinculo from the ap-
pellee. Afollie E~ngleman. The grounds
upon which the divorce was asked for
are two, viz: First. that Mollie l.. Engle-
man has deserted the plaintiff. l.. ID. En-
gleman, and, second. that she had been
guilty Of adultery. The lower court held
that neither OF these charges had been
sustained and dismissed the bill OF the
plaintiff husband. The decree Of the
lower court was to-day affirmed by the
Court OF Appeals. Judge George Moffatt
Harrison delivering the opinion. Judg,
Harrison, in delivering the opinion of the
court, says: "A review OF the mass Of evi.
dence In this record upon the question Of
fact we are called upon to determine
would be wholly without profit to any one
II is sufficient TO say that after a careful
consideration OF the whole case We have
no difficulty in reaching the conclusion
mat appellant has wholly failed to show
himself entitled 70 fha v.ff.4 D.. III. %
The Court of Appeals also approved Fhe
action OF the lower court In allowing the
wife $3.50 TO be paved by her husband for
counsel fees and expenses Incurred by her
IN defending this suit.
LIABILITY FOR FUNDS.
r. NJ. Ayres against John K. Hite. etc:
appeal from the Circuit Court Of Au.
gusta county in the suit Of Hite's admin
istrator against Hite's infants. The-solc
question presented in this case is. whether
OF not the appellant. r. VI. Ayers. as
surety for William j.. Craig. appointed a
receiver or commissioner Of tn court bs
It's decree Of November 10Th. lSI5. 70 col
lect certain funds due from purchasers Of
real estate in the cause, Is liable for other
funds received by Craig as receiver or
commissioner of the court under a de
cree subsequent 70 that Of November the
18th. 1873. TIL bond executed BY Craig
with Ayers as surety. was taken I'm ac
cordance with the decree authorizing 10
which was TO collect and disburse the bal
ance due on land bonds. The subs ouent
decree AUTHORIZED Craig as receiver ant
'OmmisslOner 70 col ect from a former
-eceiver and commits iOner In the cause
4 sum of about $500 which he did not
collect. The court held that %"sureties
stand upon the letter OF their contract
nEmf. HfmIFHFHr. t. .F.mm a.-f- %
and consequently that II. NJ. Ayers. as
surety FOR William +. Craig. receiver O.
Commissioners. is mt liable for any funds
eceived by him and not properly &C
ountcd for, other than the balance due
md uncollected on the land bonds when
he decree was entered directing that said
Craig give q bond as receiver and CON.
missioner. Opinion by Judge Richard
II. Cardwell.
FIRE FROM LOCOMOTIVE.
Kimball & Fink, receivers, etc. against
3. F.. Borden: Appeal from the Circuit
Court Of Warren county TO a judgment
against said receiver for damages for
90 running engines and cars along the
railway operated by them as to set fire
TO and destroy said Borden's property
There were many grounds Of error as
signed by the appellants here TO the &C
NiNiAl VI AANE " iNNAa AN hAN L-h EAlrAi re-
lions asked for by counsel for appellee.
The court holds. in effect. that it IS the
duty OF a railroad company 20 avail itself
Of the best mechanic cOntrivances and
inventions in known practical use for pre-
venting the burning of private property
by the escape of sparks and Goals from
its engines. The fire having been com
nunicated by sparks from an engine. the
court held that in this case such emission
II sparks which caused damage 10 the
tppellee was due % negligence on the
oart OF the railroad company. Upon one
assignment Of error - an instruction as
o the measure of damages the court was
equally divided. and the appellee. having
Won IN the court below, that judgment
vas affirmed.
Kimball and Fink are receivers Of the
Norfolk aud Western Railway Company |
The opinion Of which above is an alb
tract was delivered by Judge John A.
Buchanan. II was possible for the cour
to be evenly divided owing to tia absence |
Of Judge James Keith, president.
DDlIMQv CbuEO uIM |