Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-01-13
MANY CASESD DECIDED
TWENTY OF THEM DISPOSED OF III
THE SUPREME COURT.
The DELINQUENT LAND LAW
Nandamus Awarded Mr.
Against Clerk Chrissi"h-s
,r,, pe,,r,meut Must Depend q"
rsrt,,,cr Fecs-The Cannon case

the Supreme '-Ourl ol NPf Mt
christmas holidays. and the l"'' ia
twenty opinions were handed GOV"
,,,ohor ~ other motions passed. upo"
shows that the judges have not oeeH 80
r,,,r richmond cases and two OF spe
10, ,,,oros. from Norfolk. were anlo"s
tho most important Of those ueoi'0D 90
,a,s the opinion OF greatest h'ei.'t
49, ,ord-owners OF the state Is tha' pi'
-, ~, rudge Buchanan in the ca'o "
-, va Christian. Clerk. as TINS 10 '''e
a., local case in which the dehnque.
Ia &c, nassed by the last Gene 81 ~
.a,,hlv has been construed by inns
Dooiev applied for mandarnus " .,
~ cork of the Hastings Court vi
picbmond TO accept the sum teHuo
49, tbe delinquent land act In reoenip-
~ lot located in this city sold IoI
- .Na,,,nopt of taxes The land was re-
,urned delinquent for the year 1850 anu
sold I'm 1883. being purchased lot tne 49, go,
nv the City Treasurer. ana the s"io ""
confirmed and recorded. IL was aSsesSI ~
for taxes in the name OF the p eu'ion.l -,
hoth 1856 and 1887. In 1884 IL was ielu I, ~
delinauent in the name OK one N"Us -
who had acquired through suhoty 1t
toner after the land had Deeh SoiO ~
Commonwealth in his name ,,,d
,rbe treasurer again bought the idhu
for the state in 1886. and in 1888 one G,eIn
fled application TO purchase the lui,
/ ero,,, tho commonwealth under the uoil'
ouent land law passed by the last zen
raI Assembly and proposed to pay 'ie
ar,o,nt for which the land was sou III
1eoe when II was standing in the haIic
80 vaueban together with such o'ne'
sums az NAV have accrued TOT taxes,
IL s,ave notice TO Vaughan and the ho'u-
- 81 a deed of trust on the land. Nltiii u
four months Vaughan applied 10 'he 80 80
for a statement of the amount LOT -
the sale in the petitioner hdnle
made &c The Clerks statement s"o"
ed that the back taxes, win lh1eI. g.,
costs. Independent OF Glenn uPp.'o' 80.
Ia purchase. were &.17' ana thst e"e
aIty and costs. by reason OF Glenn aP-
ri;Sotton amounted to 500. The petition,
- rendered the S2.77. but the Clerk wouiu
not accent anything except the Whoie
amount DoOley then instituted proceeu-
ings TO compel him TO DO so.
| The Court. after a very exhaustive uls-
cuseion of the questions involved, says
ave ara of opinion, therefore, that INV
netitioner had the right TO redeem the
LAND and that he had'the right to reoeeH
~ mon he terms and conditions pre-
ecrihed in section ga of the Code. as
amended. and that the Clerk had no righ
IN demand of him the payment or costs
fees and penalty. which section otb o
the code. as amended, provides shal %
COLLECTED for the benefit Of the party wh'
has filed an application to purchase uH
der that section. Such costs, tees' am
penalty can only be collected rom III
party redeeming where the apphcation
purchase is filed in accordance WIN ma
section. The prayer of the peuuohe
must be granted"
DECIDES AGAINST THE BOARD.
Marye. Auditor. VS.. Board or Agr
culture. From the Circuit Court OF hlSn
mond. Opinion by Judge KEITH l. ~
a Bu'ford and others. constitutin
the Board of Agriculture, prayed III
lower court TO grant manuaIius up
State-Auditor Marye, requiring Nh, II
nav certain warrants drawn by the re-
suTer. and counterslgned by the presl1SI
of the board. amounting to S95io0' -,
last legislature in the general appTopll '
tion bill provided that the Depar tIhel
If Agriculture should be maintained sore
by funds derived from TAX on tei ~ ~ %,
The Legislature. it was alleged by tle "a
naliees i'm 1883 appropriated $lUVD loI u
snpnort Of the board. The claim W.
| made that this act was never Iepe,Trii ny,
| unless by the act Of 1898 referred 70 ~ ~
| said that october l, 1891, the books OF u
Auditor credited the board with SlVv.
that he honored warrants to the anlou
~ e. 1fSN of which S,l6l62 were pa
nrior 10 March 3. 1898, when the approPri
ton bill was passed by the last Leg -,
ture. The appellees claim tn,S =
should have been charged agalnst l
80 900 appropriated by the act or lSso "a, "a
if that act was not in force the AuuiI
could not use money dedlcateu 70 O1 ~
purposes TO wipe out this oVeruIaIl; ,-o1
AuditOr refused to honor drafts TOT So''
and used money from fertilizer taNalI
IN wine out the overdraft. Inc COZ
holds that every authority or law WIN
J. NAV have heretofore existed loI llc f
rnent out Of the Treasury any sum III
the salaries and expenditures oi ,, tlie ~ ~
IN Of Agriculture are repealed, elthSE III
~ nress terms or by implication. Inc lu'
~ mont Of the Circuit Court is reversed z
| the petition dismissed.
u BURRUSS INSURANCE CASE
IN Rurruss VS.. National Life Association.
= Hartford. Conn From the Law
m Equity Court Of Norfolk Ann IL
III Opinion by Judge Harrison. -,
The appeilee by It's plea puts IN is
- Tho bona fdes Of the contract OF IN
M rance by alleging that the answers M
by the appellant % the agent OF sie 60
H. | pany when asked CERTAIN ne -. 81
lions were absolutely untrue tnat II
IN we're made for the purpose OF misiead
u and deceivng the insurance company,
80 did so deceive and mlslead IT, 81 ne 70
saws this plea is sustained. Inc pO
in question was issued ior tne Dr 49,.
a creditor Of the insured, ana IL was {
tended that this beneficiary was not
fected bv the alleged deception as
E agent of the company knew the 81
% ments were untrue. and that the comp
is therefore estopped 10 ITig On .,ie ~ -
as avoiding the policy. The court n
that such knowledge was hol Dio'
4 | home to the agent. The agent apPHe
1pI the beneficiary. and suggested mat
wv Burruss was indebted 10 MN, ne
henefciary) should have his tburIu'
$50 insured. The beneficiary replied
the health Of Burruss was so pad
= company would accept FISK on me-
a In reply the agent said that made no
"a ference. as his company accepted !
~ declined by other companies. Inc c
IA holds that this reply was fully expia
M nv the fact and understood by the
III sured to mean that the company
~ first and seeond-ciSss risks, the
IN MUM being regulated by the class
~ which the insured belonged. The ms
al answered his medical examiner in
~ a way that he was accepted as I
f8 class risk the policy issued. received
t4 the beneficiary, and the premium
IN the beneficiary knowing the amount
IA that required for a first-cass FISK.
~ court holds that the statement made
"a the beneficiary TO the agent regarding
SA bad health OF the insured end his re-
IN ton by other companies. did not es
"a fish the fact that those things were
"a but could only put the agent on
"a guard. The opinion says: ut W
18 hardly be contended that II the ms
xH had taken out this policy Tor his
"a benefit that his estate could recover
"a the face Of the gross fraud shown 10
N been perpetrated by him in procurin
~ There Is nothing In the circumstance
X.1I ,.I.1 ,lHL IlrN In