Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-01-13

then pau o,,rt siIuains the lower coui :,
Supi en' ,h,t Weber had no autholaS ~
h,nd The Insurance company cid policy.
cash sutrsiu Iarguage did not snow i iiat
ana t.l as "a agree that MS colup1ay
LID nav e. The court ,tnn OF All
W. q very careful CONSIDERS sosorahle
the evidence, and in the l Nv, u,ere bound
lght lVi t ~ upon a demurrer 70 nc
e..,Serce and with stronK az a. very
,oSeible under the law uor ts. a. defend
hard case). to find in favor % Az L~ co"
ant. we have been unaDle ~ Wv
MONEY PAID BY MISTAKE pooa
c,,v National Bank Of Norfolk vs. W: r derv
g. Son. From the Law anu ~, Judge
Court OF Norfolk Opiiiio" ~
~ annellees and other stockholN1le er
- Tho Union Milling COMPANY; 81 indi
folk gave TO the appetIaii:'sso 80 0 io lien of
vidual notes, aggregaung 49, The bank.
notes of the company, held ny ~ bank
Tbo anpelIees paid their note 70 !lns,apded
Ia spp,e time later the bank az IA ond
81 tbern pavment of a note Vi ~ VI,liinr
otber Indebtedness due from III, roambers
Company. Jordon,. one ol not knowing
OF the t 49, 4, the case. paid Siyl.99; lhese
a,i ~ we're claimed by the appel naid
render il unfair for them " THE
ths 90 coo. or any portion Va TIVE lower
Ifoffr
Mllil Min S{o,,nd Tor Peed & Son. Inc On the
c3u,t lis sustains the Norfolk coui s, I'd
oninfGn saving "the jury nay iSd under
~. he money sued for was pau cannot
a material mistake OF "a and circum-
a., nat under all the facts anu az. ,,'as CON
say Una, ~ The case their verdict was ~"
stances - - The law and the evidence
pARRED BY THE STATUTE. .r,s
,,..ndy,e Administratrix VS.. n. Gn,,rt
! he sheI s,-ator Law and Equity -
| - ~ civ Of Richmonu'
| 0,trion by president keith. H., county.
0aniel flasher died IN l1Q(99lSd" thai his
| and his children IN 1871 ~, arbitration,
| estate nlSoncery suit then pehulhs ~
anu la granville flasher, VINO ~ heT
-, Njiesissippi, appointed hiS ,,is sbare
| samuel his agent 70 r a,spTii to him. In
Hlu i.o,,ber of that year GranVille l@ So
| aaoknowledged the receipt oil ~ Iet' 80, that
SIhii tro,ber samuel. informing MN 1ii 81
Ne, ne had sold his interest ana ~, P,,o,iIf
| soon IN collect the money WIZ ny, II, Pfch
aOo,, oe,oin samuel flasher dleq ~ - =,
write agSI l,a,.r,,sTv 1894. and in l>ecempel
| H III ~. reVt wear Granville iasneI H'S a.
| ~ hIn in the Law and Equity S1Ii - a.
! n,bich ne charged that Saihuei 10 fidu
| WAS liable to account 10 nm .-,,s,ee =
ciary relations as aser ,,o ~i' no ascertaine'
| and ray such sum as may M, pe aadminisfra
t,,stlY and rightly due Inc aen;,,,,eI =
| - WIDOW and children OF s.9ant Tn,
ffasber were made parties oeleI na ~ caus
teu, and Equity Court reIe 49, iSu ~ u,as On
-" y Commissioner, and decree =" ~ ooe II
10 a i,,5r ~ the plaintiff fer so J.
eei i tnterest on $72037, part theIeot' taid
NJ NJ 1ea7 The Supreme Ooui -
49,, his decree was erroneous, any bor +
he ctatute of Limitations wa Heshe
The action. 1t further nous or brother. bu
was not lent whose duty 1t was
collect and pay over at oA07'
OTHER CASES DECIDED.
-. 1ndge lanes Keith, P: l,,.a,oor
by Juuse Wells Law and ChanceI
rSp1rt CITY OF Norfolk. Reverse; r,,o p,
CS Grand Fountain, United order dru Son N,
formers. VS. Wilson. CoIpoi @'iO''
city of Lynchburg. Ann tIveiinp, Coul
Eaiiev VS.. McCance. HuS'iheS O'I
,,t Do' ~ petersburg. Affirmed. CIV.
0' ttSSrodebav US. Bratton. Circuit CouiI
uighIand county. Affirmed. . Aor;cu
H7nrve Auditor, VS.. Board OF AZ ~
ture. Circuit Court OF CITY "a
he IToeicbEiss Trustee, VS.. Middlekauf
. ho'( Circrii Court Of Rockingham couI
D | ty Reversed. 49, r,,..
. Bv Judge John w. Rely -. tor 6.
Hoge & Hutchinson VS.; lq Rsverrse ed y
Moore VS.. Triplett. Circuit court
. sbaDondoah county Affirmed.
!. Mercantile Cooperative Bank
Brown and others. Circuit Court OF Ia
f. county. Affirmed. ,,,.
o Nv Judge r. H. Cardwell:
RXildinF. Light and Water Company '
I Erav et ais. Corporation Court clty
y l5uena Vista, Reversed. ,,. =,
= cannon ct al VS. Commonwealth. &c
J. poration Court city OF NortOlk, heNeiS'
4 BY Judge John A. Buchanan: .
r TYSON VS. williamson. Judge Oh
y r'ircuit Court of Rockbridge county
: Warlng VS.. Waring Decree Of the c
Il uit Court OF Essex county ainrHeu'
n Bv Judge George NJ. Harrison:
J, Jittell vs.. julius Lansburg Compai
ircuit Court of Alexandria county. /
]. ersed
y corporation Court OF DanVlile' Ann III
r MOTIONS PASSED UPON.
. Triplett. &C. VS.. Woodward's Admir-
fator. Circuit Court oil I,0uu9uh cum
ppeal and supeTsedeas. Bona.
Citv of Charlottesville VS.. South
.eii9ov COMPANY Corporation co
Z Charlottesville. Bond, S5Og.
Tunis Lumber Company vs.. Dennis IL
er COMPANY T VII of 'S error u award
b SAM VS.. Coleman. Circuit Court
,ncaster county Writ Of error
rpersedeas. Bond. 5000
,I Richmond halfway e-iio ~ ~
u any VS. Brown: circuit COURT Oh
e. .ty of Richmond. VIII OF error d"'
1 q. Bond 500. o,.A.. -.
b Wise VS. Commonwealth. County &C
c Henrico county. Writ of error ava
n price VS.. Wysor's Executors. Cir
ar curt of Montgomery county Apl
t. I'D supersedeas. Bond, &O.
e Leslie VS.. Pitman. Circuit Court
on henandoah county. Appeal ana su
a. IDEAS. Bond. 81 900.
n Male ana wife vs.. Parish &c.
4. nit Court of Culpeper. Appear
IN upersedeas. BOND. $3.50
~ iones VS. City Of Williamsburg Cir
T. .ourt Of city of Williamsburg and ia
o. ~ county Writ of error and su
Fl IDEAS Bond, 500.
Fry VS.. Showers Circuit Court of Il
n, aunty. Writ of error ana suppressed
: ChiNress. &C.. VS.. Snapp. Circuit
q Augusta county. Appeal. Bond, $
M. Robins VS.. Thomas. Circuit Cour
a., s'oucester county. Appeal refused.
-, Trhler VS.. Melrose Land Company.
N, nit Court of Alexandria. Writ of {
No efused.
81 TATE VS.. Bank OF the State of
ooI york Argued by 4. Coleman for p
~, IA in error and John ID. HOrsley fOl
rndant in error, and submitted.
ro Richmond Union Passenger Rail
no. ,1mpanv VS.. Richmond fredericks
rst I'D Potomac Railroad Company. Ar
-, Wvndham r. Meredith for plaint
,id rror and continued until to-day
m Two stiIl-Alarms.
h. 49,, - x,osterdav were ca