Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-02-03
Rochester, n. Y.

dence set out in the bills Of exceptions
numbered one and two, and judgment is
reversed and a new trial ordered.
RAILWAY AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
WINS.
The court reversed the Chancery Court
Of Richmond I'm the case Of the Rich
mond Railway and Electric Company vs..
Harris.
Hotchkiss. Field & Co. contracted to
build and equip part Of the track Of
the Union Passenger Company, whose
property afterwards passed into the pos
session Of the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company. Harris was one OF
the above firms sub-cOntractOrs. He
claimed pay for extra work done, and.
sued the Richmond Railway and Electric
Company.
IN the Chancery Court he got a tudg-
ment. but the Supreme Court in brief
opinion by Judge Harrison, holds that
the railway company knew only Hotch-
kiss. Field K CO., and that If Harris has
any valid claim for extra work done he
must sue them.
\ FEMALE CONTRACTORS SUIT.
In November, 1894, Mrs. VI. j. Dawson
contracted with Il. y. Wilson & Co.. gem
eral contractors, for the erection and
construction of the United States public
building i'm Roanoke. to do all the founda
ton work Of the building. She was
to be paid monthly. No time was set for
the completion Of the work. and no stipu-
lation as to the size Of the force to be
employed was made. She entered upon
the work. prosecuted ii until March Il,
lS5 and on March H. 1895, she received
| letter from Wilson a Co., saying that If
she did not, within three days, have
sufficient hands at work 30 complete the
| work by May LIST. they would take up
the work and finish It, holding Mrs. Daw-
son responsible for all losses. Mrs. Daw-
| son did not resume work. and on March
| 18th Wilson & Co. did take up the work
| In the following November Mrs. Dawson
| brought suit for 81 ,2O32 with interest
| from March 10, 1895. claiming this as the
amount she was entitled TO recover on her
1 contract with Wilson & CO. The jury
gave Mrs. Dawson N0l442, without in
| terest. and a verdict and judgment for
the plaintiff on the offsets filed by the
| defendant Wilson obtained a writ Of
error from one of the judges Of the Su-
ureme Court. The amount given the
plaintiff by the jury included the pros
pective profits Of Mrs. Dawson.
The court holds, i'm the opinion by
Judge Cardwell. that the plaintiff was
| not Gnlllltu 10 ltttNtl hllDAA lil'tAglA AiAN'4
| section 32ll Of the Code, as it stood when
| the action was brought, damages for a
| breach of her contract with Wilson q
| Co. The action sounded in damages
owing 10 suit being brought for prospec-
tive profits.
Judgment is reversed and annulled, the
verdict set aside. and new trial or
dered.
HE SUED IU- EMPLOYERS.
Judge Harrison wrote the opinion in
| Goldsmith & Co. vs.. Latz, an interesting,
case from the Corporation Court OF DAM
vile. II seems that Goldsmith q Co..
merchants of Danvile employed Latz
10 manage their establishment, contract
ing TO pay him a salary Of $50 per month
and one third the net profits FOR the year
ending January l5 1895. The contract was
to run from April rs. 1891, 90 April l6 1895.
and IL was stated that il should continue
in force for like successive periods until
abrogated by one Of the parties IN which
event "a written notice was TO be given
not less than sixty days i'm advance of
the period at which IL was proposed TO
terminate the contract. The term OF SER
vice of Late was from April 20 April Of
each year. and his term Of profit sharing
from April TO April, according 10 the
opinion of the court. IL seems that Late
| left the service OF the company. either
voluntarily or was discharged. the SUI
preme Court holding that the lower court
erred I'm not allowing the jury 20 con-
slider this question. Late brought suit
against Goldsmith & co. for settlement,
claiming that he had not been paid
sufficient sum, representing his salary
and share of the profits for the year end
ing I'm January 1885, though II seems that
be accepted the amount, and did not OBJ
'ect 10 It's insufiiciency for more than
year after settlement. The court holds
lhat the lower court erred i'm refusing %
instruct the jury that If they believed
from the evidence that the plaintiff did
accept the settlement and delayed suing
for more than "a year. it raised pre-
sumption that Late had agreed to the
| correctness of such settlement. and that
unless the jury should believe that such
presumption was rebutted, they should
find for the defendant on that question.
The court holds that the verdict must
Doe set aside. and the cause remanded for
"a new trial, with the views expressed in
the opinion.
SUMMARY.
Judge John w Rely:
Southern Railway Company VS.. Frank
I'm and Pittsylvania Railroad Company.
Circuit Court of Franklin county. Amend
ed and affirmed.
Judge r. II. Cardwell:
Wilson VS. Dawson. Hastings Court,
city of Roanoke. Reversed.
Judge John A. Buchanan:
Whitelaw's Administrator VS.. White
laws Administrator. Appeal from the
Circuit Court Of Oorange county. Re
Versed.
Judge George NJ Harrison:
Richmond Railway and Electric Com
pany VS.. Harris. Chancery Court city
OF Richmond. Reversed.
Goldsmith & CO. W. Late. Corporation
Court. city of Danville. Reversed.
Finch vs. Southern Railway Company.
Circuit Court Of Mecklenburg. Appeal
and supersedeas. Bond, 500.
Perkins vs.. Purvis Circuit Court Of
Albemarle county. Appeal and superse-
de9s Bond 800