Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-30
OUR SUPREME COURT.
SOME OPINIONS DELIVERED Al
wYTHEvILLE YESTERDAY.
THE TENHAET-DUNLOP CASE DECIDED
Dunlop Must Account to the Tenant
Estate for Actual Value OF Interest
brands, &C., when Firm Dissolved.

WYTHEvILLE. VA. June 3.-(spe-
cial)-The proceedings of the Supreme
Court to-day were as follows:
Judge James Keith. preslding-Camp vs..
Wilson. from the Circuit Court OF Nanse-
| mond county; reversed, Judge Harrison
dissenting Cullop VS. Leonard. etc.
from the Corporation Court OF Bristol;
reversed spoor vs.. spiller, from the Cir
cult Court of Smythe county: reversed.
Judge John a. decentralization
VS.. Dunlop. ct ais. from the circuit
Court of Petersburg; reversed. Kelly vs.
Faiymount Land Company. from the Law
and Equity Court OF city Of Richmond;
reversed. Counselman vs.. Holston Assoc
citation. from the Circuit Court of Wythe
county; affirmed.
Judge X. II. Cardwell-Norfolk and
Western Railway Company vs.. Reeves IL
Mcneil, from the Circuit Court Of Smythe
county; reversed.
Judge John A. Buchanan-Robertson
IS. ID. 4. Preston, Treasurer, from the
Circuit Court of Washington county; re-
versed.
Judge George NJ. Harrson-Bristol Door
and Lumber Company vs.. city OF
Bristol, from the Corporation Court of
the city of Bristol; reversed. Hall VS..
Caldwell, from the Circuit Court Of the
Pulaski county; reversed. Southern Rail
way Company vs.. Wilcox & DeJarnette.
from the Law and Equity Court of the
city Of Norfolk; writ OF error and super
sedeas. Bond. $500,
Pitch vs.. Commonwealth, from the Cir
cult Court Of Augusta county; writ of
error awarded.
Williams vs.. Commonwealth. from the
County Court of Wise county; witt of
error awarded.
Norfolk and Western Railway Com
pany VS.. Old Dominion Transfer Com
pany from the Circuit Court of city of
Lynchburg; appeal. Bond, $500.
Dunbar vs.. Hill, from the Circuit Court
OF Dickinson; appeal refused.
Slaughter VS.. Smithers, petition to re-
hear; petition refused.
TENNANT-DUNLOP CASE.
This opinion was written by Judge
Rely. In the year 1867 David y. Tenant.
who had been engaged for many years
I'm the manufacture Of tobacco. associated
David Dunlop with himself in the conduct
Of the said business. under the firm name
Of u. p. Tenant & Co, which co-part-
nership continued from its formation
until the death of Tenant, on October
6, 1855.
The business during the existence Of
the partnership was emnently successful
and profitable. Dunlop, after the death
Of Tenant. had frequent interviews with
the executriX % the decedent. with the
view OF acquiring his interest in the good
will and trademarks o. the late firm.
Being unable TO agree upon persons 10
fix the value thereof, and Dunlop assert
ing that the good Will and trademarks
survived to him as surviving partner,
and were his property. but Offering to
pay $1,000 for the interest Of her tcstator
in the good will Of the business and in
the brands and labels OF the firm, and
500 for an individual brand Of u. b. Ten
nant. she accepted his offer.
The children of ID y. Tenant fled their
original bin, alleging that their interest
i'm the good will and brands was sold 20
Dunlop by their mother at grossly In
adequate price; that the sale was induced
by the undue influence and misconduct
Of Dunlop. and that having reaped all
OF the benefit OF the purchase he should
he made primarily liable therefor. and
they asked that he be made TO account
for the actual yalre Of the assets so inn
properly obtained. They afterwards filed
their amended bill. making additional
charges I'm substantiGtion OF the same al
legged misconduct. asking that the sale
be rescinded, the good will and brands
be- sold. the proceeds Of sale divided be-
tween Tenant and Dunlop, and that he
also BE- required t. account for an equal
share Of the profits realized from the good
viii and brands since the purchase.
Dunlop demurred TO the bill which the
court below overruled, but on the hearing
dismissed the bill.
Held: That there was no error In over
ruling the demurrer u the bill; that Dun
lop should account To Tenants estate
for the actual value Of the interest of the
deceased in the good will brands, and
labels at the time of the dissolution of
the firm and that he should be- required
to pay TO the plaintiffs such value. sub
jet TO "a credit for the amount he had
previously paid 10 the executrix Of Ten
nant's estate.