The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-11-11
Originated Seven Years Ago and
Went to Supreme Court.
COMPROMISE FIGURE A SECRET.
Principals and Attorneys arc Rcticent
on that Point-Amount or Com
pensation, However, Was Quite
Largc-The Final Decree
Entered at Petersburg
This Week.

The celebrated case Of d. y. Tenants
administrators versus David Dunlop. which
originated in the Circuit Court OF PEERS
burg in 1897. has been compromised. The
parties In interest arrived at ID settlement
about fortnight ago, and decree re-
cording the disposition OF the suit was
entered by Judge b. A. Hancock. OF the
Petersburg Circuit Court. on Wednesday.
The amount that passed from Dunlop
to the Tenants h. Withheld from the
public. IL Is a secret known only 10
those directly interested and 10 the at
torney in the case. These an decline TO
say what sum was involved ia the COM
promise II was the wish OF the grin
cipals that the matter be kept from the
public. and none has violated that verbal
agreement not to talk. However, the
sum is known 20 have been quite large.
representing. In fact fortune In itself.
The litigation thus ended constitutes an
interesting chapter On The history OF Nir-
ginia courts IN recent years. The cause
had been pending for seven years a num-
erous array OF eminent counsel was en-
gagged: several extraordinary questions Of
law were involved. and. especially az the
outset, each principal contested the case
at every point with unusual spirit.
HISTORY or THE CASE
ID. B. Tenant q Co., tobacconlsts. of
Petersburg. built up an extensive export
business in the manufactured product.
In 1883 or lSSi the senior member Of the
firm died. The surviving partner, David
Dunlop, continued the business. which
ne siiu conducts under his own name. In
1892, Mr. W. Brydon Tenant attained
his majority. Suit was then instituted
against Dunlop 10 compel the payment 20
the Tenant estate OF a sum covering the
decedents interest IN the Old firm :
brands. There were originally twenty
five or thirty OF these brands, but one.
known as the Derby" brand. was held 10
be more valuable than all the rest. To-
bacco bearing the Derby" brand COM
manded a big sale in Australia, shipments
OF which TO that country constituted the
principal business Of the Petersburg
factory.
The question presented In law was,
whether brands as the term was used In
the suit were the property Of a firm In
the sense that at the death OF a member
interest in tho brands descended to de-
cedents estate or whether. on the other
hand the brands at the death OF a mem
Der became the property Of the surviving
member.
MR.. DUNLOP's CONTENTION.
II might be noted that an the death OF
Mr. Tenant. his partner compensated the
estate in the sum Of sl.eo0 or $500 for the
firms brands When the suit was in
stituted Mr. Dunlop claimed that such
payment was really a gratuity, as he was.
he further contended. not bound 70 pay
anything. His contention. in a word was
that ownership OF the brands passed %
him at the death OF his partner.
The first trial OF the ease resulted IN a
h. 1.f r.F
the Tennant estate appealed 10 the SUI
preme Court. which reviewed the case
exhaustively. The appellate courts de-
clsion. rendered about a year ago. re-
versed the findings Of the lower court
and held that the Tennant estate was en-
titled 10 compensa ton, though the amount
OF such compensation was stated
RECENT NEGOTIATIONS.
The negotiations preceding the COM
promise just effected extend back for
some time There has been series 0f
exchanges between Richmond and Peters
burg for several months, counsel on both
sides devoting considerable attention 20
the matter The principal source of
disagreement, OF course. was the amount
OF the compensation. II is felt by at
torneys in the case that agreement ont
OF court was the only practicable means
OF adjusting the controversy
Original counsel I'm the case were, for
the Tenants estate. the Old firm ~
Staples. Munford. stiles and Holiday.
Allen. Potts. and VIM. r. Mckinney. or
Petersburg: and for Mr.. Dunlop.
Alexander Hamilton and Richard 7. Davis
OF Petersburg.
More recently Mr. Hill Carter had been
engaged on behalf Of Mr. Tenants es-
tate and Mr.. Frank w. Christian by
Mr. DunIop.