The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-11-25
INJUNCTION IS
MADE PERPETUAL
judge Cardvells Opinion
ii Scott-Moore Case.
COU R T REVERSED.
End q a Long Drawn Out Contest
5etween Property Owners.
ESTATE OF MARRIED WOMEN.
Important Decision Rendered Bear
ing Son the Equitable Separate
Estate = Many Cases Dis
posed of by tho
State Supreme
Court.
ESTATE OF MARRIED WOMEN.


Among :;ls most Interesting of The cases
locally, IS that OF Scott vs.. Moore, when
Is The .nutcome OF long and hoty-
confessed litigation over the right 10
Inc use >:ind easement OF a certain alley
tn tbs .;'ear of Nos 400 and 4oS East
sIEraI.i1!: street, this city, and was
Appealed: from the Chancery Court and
reyerseoS the final disposition being in
favor Q; the appellee, Mrs. r. Carter
Scott.
The exc Of D:ir,an J. Andes vs.. O. -
Roller, Guardian. appealed from ROCK
inSham 47:ounty, and presenting a very
interesting discussion OF the law OF the
equipabl. separate estate of married
women, ! was also one of the most
tmpor'afSs ,r
Scott q. Moore. From Cgaanc61'y Court
OF the : city of Richmond. Reserved.
Opinion s,y Judge CardwelI-
This is Sauite a noted case. and has
been the Pounds of the courts OF Richmond
for man:s years. 1t involves the right
to the Tie of alieyway and a sewer
ege draiie Hereunder in the rear OF Nos
400 and <l2 East Franklin Stresst, which
was 9hes only connection No. 4o2 had
switil the: sewer pipes on Fourth Street
while NG AGO had its own connections
directly IN Fourth Street
The premises at No 400 are owned by
NILS. WIZ llt4i,iio-co~ thl - NOA@A
1ntssioner.s sale, and lie property at No.
402 is now: owned by Mrs. r. Carter Scott.
Both lots, were formerly the property of
James Caskie, who left No. 4u2 to has
sons Games A Caskie's) family, and
by his VIII described the boundary fna
between tue lots. referring TO the brick
wall and 10 his alley. in 1898 Mrs.
Moore BEGAN the construction of houses
in the rea.- of her premises, No. 400. and
removed he wall and obS:rIct ed the
drainage through the alley from NO. 4D2
Injunction, was awarded the appellant
The Law and Equity Court requested
Judge Wexford to try the case in the
Circuit Court, who, after hearing, refused
ITO disssve the injunction. wllereupon
defendants counsel took the deposition
of James A Casl1ie on behalf OF the
defendant, and, without notice TO the
complainant or her counsel, approached
Judge Wexford and reGuesed him not
TO preside further IN the case, as their
client believed he was prejudced against
her interest.
Under these circumstances, Judge Well
ford, against the protest of complaints
counsel. refused to preside further IN the
case, and it was by order of the Law and
Equity Court transferred TO the Chancery
Court. and the Judge Of the latter court
upon hearing dissolved the injunction, from
which decree this appeal was taken
eripg the manner in which the testator.
James Caskie, constructed the two pre-
misses Nos. 100 and 402, the uses made
of the alleyway up to the time Of his death
and the language of his will disposins OF
them, there is nothing to justify the con-
clusion that the alleyway was 10 pass
exclusively to the devisee of No. 400: there
fore the commissioners, Srantors of appel
lee. exceeded their authority in executing
The deed describing the property so as to
include this alley
The court further held that there is moth
ing in the evidence Of any act On the part
of the appellant or on the part of those
under whom she claims, from which II
could be reasonably inferred that she or
they intended to surrender any right 10
the easement III the alleyway in question
It cannot be said that she or they have
done any act or permitted any act to
be done whereby appellee has been led in
10 a cIlange of her position, for as soon
as it becomes apparent that she INTENDED
to destroy the alleyway and the sewerage
connection through it. this suit was
brought and the injunction obtained
Opinion of the Clancery Court is re-
,,ea,sed and the injunction is made perpe-
1ual and costs laid upon appellant,
EQUITABLE SEPARATE ESTATE.
Gilman ]. Andes VS.. Q. 5. Roller guar
dian From Circuit Court Of Rockingham
county. Reserved. Opinion by Judge
Cardwell.
In the will of A. CARRIER was the fol-
LOVING item: Il give and bequeath to my
daughter, Hannah, wife of Dilman Andes.
IS, 600, as provided for in item seven. 10 be
paid by my son, Joseph. as therein set
forth. said sums of money to be her sep
arate estate. free from the debts. etc.
of her present or any future husband
Mrs Andes died intestate. leaving sur
rtving her husband and nine children.
The Court OF Appeals said: The gift
clause of the Will settled the bequest upon
Mrs. Andes TO her sole USE free from the
contest OF her husband, but without other
o. more restrictive provisions. The con-
struction of the language employed is un-
controlled of affected b: any other pro-
visions of the viii. and are of opinion
that It cannot be rightly construed as re-
straining or Withholding from the lesatee
the power TO dispose of, by viii or other
wise, the estate settled upon her. The eff