Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-11-19
THE FINAL VERDICT.
SOME OF THE SUPREME COURTS
DECISIONS LAST WEEK.
QUESTION OF AGENT And PRINCIPAL.
An Important Case, Involving wv
Liability of the Goods or mn W.
,,novn PRINCIPAL for Agents Debts.
Some other Cases.

Tho Supreme Court Of Appeals handed
down thirteen decisions last Thursday
sustaining its reputation as working
court.
An abstract OF the decision affecting
the land-grabbers' law was published in
Fridays Dispatch. While this was tho
most important Of the cases decided.
there were a number Of others which In
volved many points Of interest and deep
import. Abstracts OF some Of these are
given below.
Question of Agent and Principal.
Edmunds & Blackford, Trustees, vs..
Hobbie Piano Company from the CIR
cult Court Of Roanoke, is case OF great
IMPORTANCE. The company was DONG
business in its own name in It's own name
In Roanoke without the addition OF the
words factor" or agent or other
words prescribed by the Code as neces-
sary 10 relieve the goods of the primer
pal from liability for the debts OF the
agent or factor. The plaintiffs IN error
representing the Home Building ana Con-
veyance Company which owned the house
in which the Hobbie Company did
business, levied on certain ONCE furni-
ture and pianos and organs for rent due.
The office furniture was rented 10 the
Hobbie Company with the building. and
the Supreme Court holds that IL was not
liable To distraint for the company debts.
The same was held with reference to an
organ stored in the building subject TO
the owners order. But it was held that
an organ and a piano similarly held but
with authority 10 sell, were liable. TWO
pianos and an organ claimed by other
Fu q ha Ilhh ia
Company for sale under written con-
tracts. which We're not recorded. The
court holds these were being used by
the Hobbe Company in its business, and
were liable 20 distraint.
May Overflow His Lot.
somewhat peculiar case is that Of the
Town Of HarrisonburE VS.. John T.. Roller
II seems that General Roller obtained
from the Rockingham Circuit Court an
injunction perpetually restraining the
town Of Harrisonburg from raising the
sidewalk IN front of the residence Of the
appellee. and prescribing permanent
grade in front of his residence. The SUI
preme Court holds IN an elaborate opin-
ION by Judge Rely that a municipal cor
poratiOn is not liable for consequential
damages, such as the overflow Of a mans
lot by reason of the elevation Of side
walk I'm the course Of street improve
ments. For this and other reasons the
decree Of the Circuit Court Is reversed,
the injunction dissolved, and the bill dis
missed.
size of Tyne in an Insurance Policy
Judge George VI. Harrison writes a very
exhaustive and clear opinion i'm the case
Of National Life Association VS.. Berke-
ley and others. from the Hastings
lnff nf for Id
and 81 90. respectively, were issued upon
the life Of +. y. Berkeley by the Valley
Mutual Life Association. OF stanton.
This association failed and the policies
were transferred 10 the plaintin in error
the National Life Association of Hart
ford. The latter company issued new
policies on their faces precisely like the
| old ones. II appears that the defence 10
| this action was that the plaintiff In error
| claimed 10 be entitled TO credit on tho
face of the policy for t2,oo0 by certain
premium liens provided for among the
conditions and agreements printed on the
succeeding pages Of the policy. rms
claim was met by the defendants in
error with the answer that the conditions
and agreements relied on are not printed
in typo Of the size required by section
32J2 of the Code. The Lowell court held
that the plea was sufficient and rendered
| judgment in favor Of Berkeley. The SUI
preme Court affirms this decision.
BraIeman's Damage Suit.
An interesting case decided was that
| Of tho Norfolk and Western Railway
! Company vs.. Marpole. from the Circuit
| Court of Page county.
| Marpoe was a brakeman in the employ
| Of the Norfolk and Western. lie was
knocked from a freight train by an over
head bridge near Luray, Va, on the
| Shenandoah Branch of the Norfolk and
| Western. He alleged that by reason OF
! an unusual escape OF steam. owing 10 the
| engines being out Of order, he was not
able 10 locate himself and guard against
the danger Of being knocked off. The
! Jury In the lower court gave the plaintin
| s.. 80 damages. To this judgment writ
OF error was awarded TO the Supreme
| Court.
The Supreme Court holds, I'm an opinion
written by Judge Cardwel. that the trial
court erred in several instructions. The
judgement is reversed and the case is
remanded for a new trial
Fooled on BED Brace.
Rights to a patent bed brace are in
volved in Strickland W. Graybiil from
the Circuit Court of Botetourt county. II
appears that Jonas Graybill with j.
IA. Graybiu as his endorser executed two
notes 10 Strickland for the rights OF the
patent IN the States OF Ohio and Alabama.
| These notes were not paid and Strick-
land sued. In defence # was plead
! ed that false representations were
made 70 procure the sale Of the patent 10
the defendant. as follows: That the
patent was very valuable and selling rap
| idly: that the seller had refused 70
accept an offer of $1,000 for the inven-
ton: that he had been offered $500 Tor
four States. which he named; that the de-
PENDANTS had purchased the rights for
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES