Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-10
IT IS A CORPORATION.
THE EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL
CAN SUE AND BE SUED.
mrs. FOLKES LOSES HER CASE.
The Supreme Court Decides she '""-
NOT Recover from the soN'"''"
u.trxx.x-Tatc ~. Hank, state Oh
of New York, Affirmed.

of New YORK, AWrn'".
The Supreme Court Of Appeals, wh'ch
convened Tuesday. HANDED down mum
Der Of opinions yesterday, some Vi '''"'
Off general interest.
The case OF Maia's Administrator vs.
tho Directors OF the Eastern state HOS
n,,al which involved the liability OF the
STATE Hospital 20 be sued for injuries re-
ceived by an inmate. has excited most
interest. Maia, an Italian, who resioeu
in this city. was killed while digging III
the side Of an embankment at tne nos
pital at Williamsburg. where ne was 4"
inmate. His administrator sued the u
reetors Of the hospital for damages. sun
WAS brought in the Circuit Court OF Hio"-
mond and was decided against the
plaintiff. who took az appeal Inc III
rectors of the hospital demurred 70 tne
declaration. and each count the'eoi'
ynitting all the facts Of the case as cilcu
by the plaintiff. but holding tn@'
could NOT render the hospital haDle. -
MS contenaed that the hospital is pup
uc corporation. and an agency OF the COM
rnooxyealtb I'm the administration OF gov
arnnentsl functions that inasmuch as
,bc ctate would not be liable In damages
for tho death OF the piaintin, the uetcHu-
ant. an arm Of the State. is not llaDle
,rbe court decides otherwise. The opin-
Ion which was written by Judge harrison
sovs that waving whatever We" 'io
court might have taken OF the question "a
an original proposition, 1t IS no" se.1vsS
a. N-irginla law, and cannot be reopeneu'
~ Virginia has declared the Eastern HOS
n,,al 10 be a corporation. code OF VIZ
80 section 1861 as such it can sue
and be sued. 49,,
cases cited I'm support OF the view taken
~, the court are: The Eastern Lundtic
Asvlum vs.. Garrett. q Graft, leo; NC
Clanahan W.. Western Lunauc Asylum
81 va. 4ss and Mangus VS.. McClellaho'
90 Va. 1856 -. T.. .o,
The Judgment of the lower court Is se'
aside. the demurrer overruled' ana the
cause remanded for further proceedings
DECIDES AGAINST MRS. FOWLhES.
Judge James Keith. T., wrote the opin-
ion afirming the decision Of the Ia" anu
Equity Court In the case OF fo"Ihes W.
the Southern Railway Company
on July p. 1896 Mrs. Fowibes' OF TINS
CITY bought Of the Southern railway, mere
The Farmville and Powhatan railroad
which crosses the Southern at Moseley
Junction. twenty-five miles south OF klch-
mond. Tho AGENT told her the train would
connect at Moseley with the FaIInNlle
and Powhatan train. She found at NOSE
lev that no such connection would De
made that day. She was in delicate
state of health; there was no southern
station at Moseley; she failed TO see q
small one just erected by the FarmFlile
and Powhatan, and walked oW or gu
Yards 10 a store After waiting IN the
store four hours she succeeded in ge,uIg
a wagon to take her to her oesuhaIoh'
j, was raining hard; the road was very
ronph. the plaintiff was very Ill Wheh
She reached her mothers; she came near
diving the following month, and mas Deeh
en- greatly impaired health ever since
all resulting. she claimed, from the ialiuie
of the Farmyille and POwhatdn ualh 10
connect with the Southern at Moseley,
as the agent of the latter in Nchnohu
told her il would do when she purchased
her ticket. -.
AT the trial the Court excluded from
the Jury all evidence which tended 10
show that the plaintiff suffered from
The wetting, the cold the Joiuns, 1no
anxiety of mind, the subsequent sickness
etc. The jury found Tor the plal"ui ~
the sum of $3.50
The Supreme Court holds that while the
agent of the Southern here was neShgeh'
in telling plaintiff the trains would CON
meet at Moseley when they would not
this was a too remote cause OF Dana &c
"a Justify Jury in assessing damages ioi
what occurred after the plainuh lanoeu
al the junction, or the results CT her eN.
posure. The Judgment Of the Law and
Equity Court is affirmed
REORGANIZATION AND RETRAAlI
The subject of the examination OF VIII
ncsses. and the question as 10 whetheI
former suit was a complete Adjudication
were involved I'm the case Of Tate VS.
the Bank of the state of New York, from
the Corporation Court Of the city o
IVnchburg. September Ii, 1896, b. l.
Hughes made his two notes to the orde
OF j. Emory Hughes, one for A,4Vo' am
the other for 81 40 payable In lou
months AT the Traders Bank of Lynch
burg Both notes were endorsed py
l.. Emory Hughes and j. ID. Tate, FOR IN
accommodation OF the maker, and Wel
discounted at the Traders Bank be
fore maturity the notes were endorsed .
this bank and turned over 10 the Inn
National Bank Of New York as securlt
with other notes for ioan from III
bank last named. In December, 1870, III
Traders Bank gave TO the BANK oil VI
State of New York an order upon IN
Third National Bank of New YORK 10
the collateral TO be delivered after IN
debt Of the Traders 10 the Third Nations
had been paid. Both notes aggresatn
$3.50. having been protested, ana thel
being a balance of 5000 due on the moi
OF the Traders 20 the Third Nationa
the latter sued the maker and enoorsei
OF the notes held as collateral, instead
suing upon the note OF the Traders BAN
whlch they secured. The latter havir
Maid S215O on it's note held by the Thii
National. and the latter having collect'
through counsel between $50 and SSN {
another note held as collateral for II
Traders note. this overpaid the balan'
due the Third National on the note
the Traders, and costs OF suit and CO
lection. The costs not having been pa
before the court adjourned an order WI
entered Diminishing the suit and decreeii
that the plaintiff recover costs abo
its motion in this behalf expended II
two notes were then turned over 10 q
Bank OF the state OF New York.
THE FORMER SUIT.
The latter. in 1897. sued the maker al