Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-07

we're m1atinB a great noise; the water
was roaring over the dam; he was
probably in deep thought. He did not
hear Mrs. Irby's cry right at his ear;
ne did not hear, or heed, the blast Of
the whistle. Therefore, the opinion
concludes:
we are of opinion that the negli-
gence of plaintiffs intestate contribut-
ing to his injury must not only be in
Ierred from all the circumstances of the
case, but such negligence is apparent
from the plaintiffs evidence; therefore
the judgment of the Corporation Court
OF the city of Danville must be re-
versed and annulled, the verdict of the
jury set aside, and the cause remanded
to that court for a new trial to be had
In accordance with this opinion
n FOREIGN CORPORATION.
an important case decided was that
or Taylor VS.. the Mutual Reserve Fund
Life Association, u New York corpora
ton.
In this case MPjor ]. NJ. Taylor, the
plaintiff. 4 citizen of Virginia, became
a member of the company, which is
mutual assessment company, in 1882.
The company. the bill alleged, subse-
quently raised It's assessment on the
plaintiffs policy to a sum in excess of
that stipulated for the certificate of
membership or policy of insurance. He,
therefore, filed bill in the Law and
Equity Court of this city, alleging that
and extortionate. and averring that the
company had threatened to declare his
policy forfeited unless the assessment
complained of was paid within given
time. And ne prayed that the company
be enioined from carrying out this
threat. and that the court determine
what was reasonable assessment. The
company demurred to the bill on the
ground. among others, that the subject
was not within the jurisdiction of the
courts of Virginia, and the demurrer
was sustained.
The Court of Appeals (Judge Buch-
anan delivering the opinion) affirmed
the decree of the lower court, holding
that the courts of this State cannot ex-
ercise viSitational powers over the cor
porations OF another State, and that
any decree undertaking to exercise such
powers would be nugatory. because the
court would be without power or au-
thority to enforce it.
The plaintiff was represented by Mr.
w. l.. Royal. and the company by Ma
ior Charles S. Stringfellow and Judge
l.. L. Lewis.
AN IMPROvIDENT APPEAL.
The court dismisses as having been
improvidently awarded the appeal OF
the Norfolk and Western Railroad
Company V. The Old Dominion Bag
gage Company, from the Circuit Court
The appeal was from a decree over
ruling Il demurrer to the bill, in which
the court states its reasons therefore;
giving the defendants leave to file an
swers within sixty days from the adj
journment of court; providing that IL
no answer be filed the injunction there
tofore awarded should be perpetuated.
and that the defendants should pay to
the complainants their costs up to that
time expended.
1t further provided that II no an
swer was filed within sixty days, or IL
the court deemed 1t proper 1t would
at Its next regular term empanel q
jury to ascertain the compliments
damages. and that in any case the in
junction should continue in force Until
such time during the next regular
term, or sooner as the court may make
a further order touching the same. One
Of the defendants. the appellant, hav-
ing filed it's answer within the time des-
ignated. so much of the decree as was
conditioned upon the defendants fall
ure to answer never became operative.
The whole effect of the decree was to
override the demurrer to the bill, give
the defendants leave to answer, and
continue the injunction In force until
the further order of the court.
SUMMARY.
The following cases were decided to-
day:
Riley, ].
Tate VS.. Commercial Building and
Loan Association. Circuit Court of
Lynchburg. Reversed.
Cardwell J.
Southern Railway VS.. Bruce's admin
istrator. Corporation Court of Dan
Vile. Reversed.
Buchanan. J.
Baggage Co. Circuit Cour, OF Lynch
burg. Appeal dismissed.
Taylor VS.. Mutual Reserve Fund Lite
Association. Law and Equity Court
city OF Richmond. Affirmed
Winfree VS.. First National Bank of
Lexington. Corporation Court city of
Lynchburg. Affirmed.
Affirmed by Divided Court.
Tate VS.. Lazarus.
Saunders VS.. Baltimore Building and
Loan Association. Circuit Court of
Henrico county. Appeal and superse-
IDEAS. Bond, $500.
Eaves VS.. Vial. Chancery Court city
of Richmond. Appeal. Bond, 5000.
Yost VS.. Van Dyke. Circuit Court Of
Tazewell county. Appeal and super
sedeas. Bond. $3.50
Ruffner. &c, VS.. Commonwealth
County Court of Page county. Writ of
error refused.
Lipscomb VS.. Hardgrove. Law and
Chancery Court city of Richmond. APP
peal refused.
Slaughter VS. Smither. Further ar
gucd by Chas. V. Meredith for appel
liant and submitted
Baker VS.. Swineford Argued by
Henry r. Pollard for plaintiff and NJ
NJ. Gillian for defendant and contin-
ued until Tomorrow
All In sight OF monument. "Newest
discovery extracts teeth painlessly
~. y. Dental Rooms Ennon orl.r ~