The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-05-02
NORTH CAROLINA
LANDS lNVOL VED.
The Case of Wm.. A. West Against
East Coast Cedar Company.
sTRaNG AGAINST R.P.&c. ROAD
Many Important Opinions Handed
Down in the United Suites
Circuit Court OF
Appeals.
sTRANG AGAINST R. P.& c. ROAD

Ir,,,ortans decisions we're handed down
in tl1e United states Supreme Court OF
Appeals yesterday:
In the case of William A. West, appel
CANT, KS. East Coast Gear Works, ap-
peqlees, appealed from Circuit Court OF
the United states for the Eastern DIS
nrict OF North Carolina, the oI1isaon by
Judge simonton was affirmed.
The proceedings began in the Circuit
Court by bill flied by The East Coast
Cedar Company against The Richmond
CEDAR MOTHS, seeking partition OF GER
tain lands an North Carolina held by
.,hese two corporations as tenants IN
common, by several coilreyiAnces TO them,
respectively, from the heirs OF BaainSter
Jarvis ana Levy Walker, who had he'd
tfs7rn as tenants IN common. Pefcaiis
THESE proceedings WillEan a. West, the
appellant. prayed leave TO intervene,
claiming that he also had an undivided
interest IL the same lands. the cause
WAS rheTelslsun referred 10 special mas
Ter. AT the references it appeared that
West held under d conveyance OF the
interest of Caroline Walker, one of the
heirs Of Levy Walker, but he also claim
ed epe-tlird of the land under title,
dated after the bill in This case Was filed,
from the heirs Of one Spruiil, who was Co
tenant with Sykes, from whom III IS clarg-
ed that Jarvis and Walker derived title.
The referee held THAT it was not COM
potent in this suit for the intervenpr TO
dispute The title of the complainant and
defendant, as he claims under Caroline
Walker, VINO derived title from COM
mon source with them. He also held, ex
t9Inining into the title of Jarvis and
Walker, that they had a perfect title by
possession under color Of title and that
the claim of the heirs of Spruill was
barred. He then recommended partition
between the complainant and the defend
ant.
The report Of the referee was affirmed
and his legal conclusions adopted by the
.C!rcuit Court The intervenor excepted
and the cause is heard on the assignments
of error These present the questions
arising out of the conclusions Of law OF
the referee
On Sth April. 1896. the State of North
Carolina issued a patent 10 John McRae
of 5.oSo acres, lying within the boundaries
of a patent issued the year before for
over 10000 acres TO John Gay Blount.
In 1899 the Sheriff. under execution for
taxes, sold and conveyed all NicRae,s
right. title and interest in this tract TO
john ATTnistead, and the same year
-Arnristead conveyed all his title and
estate in this tract to Daniel Sawyer.
Sawyer. BY deed 18th February, 1911, con-
veyed one-1lalf Of this entire tract in fee
TO John Sykes, Thomas Sykes and
Joseph Spence as tenants in common
This is the northern half of the McRae
qsate1lt, and includes uhe lands in contro-
versy in this case.
In April. 1851, Ban1sister II. Jarvis and
Levy Walker entered into possession of
this northern half of the McRae patent
under two deeds. one dated Sth April Of
that year. executed by one Joshua T. Nc
Coy The ether, dated 18th April of the
same year, executed by one John Sykes.
JT.
The opinion says: IN our opinion the
Circuit Court committed no error in con-
firnnine ttsz CONCLUSION of the referee We
express no opinion upon the conclusion
expressed by the referee and confirmed by
the court, that the intervenor, claiming
under Caroline Walker, was chopped from
asserting the title Of The heirs Of Spruill,
which he had afterwar1d purchased
The action which was brought in the
case of Frederick w Neininger against
John X. Cowan and oscar G. Murray, re-
ceiyers of the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road Company, was for injuries received
by the plaintiff in a collision with a
Baltimore and Ohio train at a crossing
Judge Simonton was affirmed, Judge
Waddill dissenting.
THE STRANG CASE.
In the suit brought by William b
Strang, Jr-. against the Richmond, Pet
ersburg and Carolina Railroad Company
Ell al, In which the opinion in the lower
court, the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Eastern District, is affirm
ed.
This bill of complaint charges the max
ing of a contract between the plaintiff
and the defendant railroad company. The
subject of the contract was the construc-
lion of a railroad between two points
not fixed. in which construction was IN
Guided the road-bed, sidings, stations. ter
rainal stations, bridges. eulvents and
equipment. with no specifications or de-
tails enabling one to ascertain what the
contract was. and when the work was
completed it was 10 be paid for in bonds,
or cash representing the proceeds there
Of. not less than Sl.seA.Ooo.
AS TO CONTRACT.
Then follows an arerrne:t of breach
of this contract. and a prayer which is.
IN effect for the specific performance of
the contract. The bill does not state
whether the contract was verbal or in
writing. or whether 1t has been reduced
TO form.
the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, so
refusing the injunction.
To the decree the plaintiff excepted.
The opinion handed down says:
THE bill cautiously refrains, from stat
ing whether the contract was verbal or
written, and the parts of the same set
forth are vague TO a degree. The court
below was impressed with this.
Were the court TO undertake its sup
ervision, all its resources and time would
be exhausted thereby
The opinion further says:
1.-THE conclusion reached by the court
below is approved. Bat ii should have dis
missed the bill without prejudice.
1.-The cause is re,naniad To the Circuit
Court, with instructions 10 modify its
decree Gn this respect, and 10 enter a de-
cree disrnfssing the bill without preju-
dice"
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS.
The following is a summary of opinions
handed down yesterday:
No. $40. The a. r. Wt;hrow Lumber Co..
petitioner. appellant. rs. The Glasgow In
vcstment CO. 81 al, appellees: appeal from
the Circuit Court al Harrisonhurg. Opin-
ION by Judge waddlll- Affirmed.
No. SIC. b. F. Jack, complainant. James
r. Williams and H c. Reatfie defendants.