The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-16
CROWDED DOCKET
SUPREME COURT
(cont,nued from Third Page.l

:
ino,,irv as to whether the vendor IS
greatly embarrassed or even that ne -
insolyent. 1t only imposes upon INC p'uA
chaser such inquiry as IS susSeetsu
the facts which are known or oisc.osen
TO him in the transaction.
..1,here was" said the court, an 2pso-
Int sale of the pianos by Fischer to Lee
and the delivery of possession before
the crea ton of the pledge. There was no
reservation Of title by Fischer nor cree teSi
tion of any lien for the unpaid purchase
money"
ut was held that the e1action Oh usu-
rious interest did not under our statu,eS
nut the pledgees upon inquiry or devoive
upon the proof that thes "e ie oos'
holders for value.
s1sha trustees in the deed of assignment
made by Lee on February 5, 1880, 81,
C,l,rchins and Jackson Brandt, We're heio
to be purchasers for value, ana thsLt U'ie
cl,1,se "As well as all other pianos, Or
cans, and other merchandise owned ny
MIN Oee) and temporarily stored else.
where ;" which was put in the deed OF
assignment, covered the pianos on which
the pledges were made and vested the
title to them in the trustees.
The amended bill was filed to make
the First National Bank. OF TINS CITY, d
partv defendant and it charges speclii-
caIlv that the bank knew of the insol-
1-ency of Ice: that the complainant had
not been paid for the three pianos pleoSeu
no it and they were not bought Dy Lee
for sale in the course of ms business "a.
were conveyed ait once on thelr arrival
to {. warehouse in Richmond and pledged
| for a loan of money "These allegations.
| said the court, "are definite, speclhc, ana
| EXPRESS charges of facts constituting
! fraud. The bank filed no answer me
| bill was, therefore, taken tor confessed
! and the said allegations were to be treat
ed as true.
..rhe complainant would be entitled to
have the pledges to the bank of the
| three niaros set aside and the same re-
! stored but for the specific provision IN
| the deed OF assignment heretofore ad-
| verted to- which conveyed title in them
I to the trustees, who. being bona lde pur-
chasers. the invalidity of the pledge to
| the bank cannot operate ITO benefit the
1 complainant
l. Decree of the lower court Is affirmed
CONSTRUCTION OF a. DEED.
| Vashon's Executrx VS.. Vashon ct al
Opinion by Judge Keith, P. Appealed
| from Law and Equity Court of the
J city OF Richmond.
| The question for decision in this case
| was the construction of a deed made
| october 81, 1850, by which John T. Sub
| let conveyed to Edward w. MOTIFS Ger
tain real estate in this city, upon certain
| terms.
1 1t was held that the decree of the trial
| court was proper iii ruling that the only
i persons entitled to share in the property
| now held under the deed. or the pro-
! ceeds of the sale thereof, are the chill
l dren OF George S. Vashon, Sr., living
/ at the time of the death, and the issue
l of those then dead, and that. those are
! to share per stripes. In other words
that the children of George S.5sVashon
/ took contingent remainders which We're
| defeated upon their death without issue
i during his life.
1t was further held that as the interest
! of the children of George 5. Vashon,
under the deed. was dependent upon their
! being alive at the death of their ather,
who survived Martha v. Nashon, con-
/ urgency which never happened, they
l had no estate which their father could
inherit.
l ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
/ Carpenter & Co. VS.. Virginia. Carolina
i Chemical Company. Opinion by Judge
J Cardwell. Appealed from the Law
and Chancery Court of Norfolk.#
! This was an action to recover dam
/ ages for the refusal of the defendant
to- take 5000 tons of Tennessee rock.
which the plaintiffs claim to have sod
I fine defendant. and which it refused to
-
accept.
4 The verdict and judgment was for the
defendant in the trial court
In reviewing the assignments OF error !.
the Supreme Court held that the otter
i of the plaintiffs to introduce IN evidence
i the entry made by the broker, Mr-5RDe-
Jarnette, in Norfolk, who negotiated the n,
sale for the company in Tennessee with TN
Mr. T. Morgan, OF Richmond sn ZOE me
defendant company. which he ADMIRED
he made before he heard from MI MOT
i gan as to VIII ether he sWould "a! "a ne el nc
I IL, nm ions. which offer was objected to
blythe defence, was properly excluded 5es[ by
the trial court. -
The refusal of = the lower cour 6. TO
give the Instruction asked by. she pam n
a tins as to the presun1p i'm OF. a reason
able time only being allowed lne &c &c
j PENDANT within Inch 81 to Ii acceptssfh ne
4 offer--of sale, and d tern,ine It's ability
II to suse Sthe rock. was held to he error: