The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-07
1879. oh. 49, . United states Statute:

6. 1889, CHI 33ss22 . United States Statutes
The Court OF Appeals overruled both
contentious, and, in closing the elaoor-
ate opinion. Judge Buchanan said. sure
~ Shipper will not he deprived OF the
benefit OF an otherwise valid contract Tor
the transportation OF his goods because
connecting carriers have failed to per-
form their duty in giv1ag publicity to the
rate II he can no one will be safe in
making contracts for the sale or trans
portaton of his goods based upon the
published rate OF the initial carrier. The
contract was not in violation OF the inter-
state Commerce act, and the plalntl't
was entitled to recover from the deten-
dart the amount OF freight collected in
excess of the agreed rate.
judgment of the Circuit Court reversed
VENDORS LIEN.
J. l.. DingUs ct ais. VS.. Minneapolis Imp.
Co. &c. From Circuit Court of Russell
county. Opinion by JuGge Cardwel.
In 1857 George Banner sold land to New
South Mining and Improvement Company,
to be cut up into lots. Under a new ar
ransernent Z. l.. Rosser. president Of said
company, On Nov. 9th. 1888. conveyed the
lands back to Banner. who in turn on the
same day reconveyed it to Rosser in his
own right, a collateral agreement being
contemporaneously executed TO the effect
that Rosser was to raise the money to dis
charge certain liens of Banners creditors
against the land. &c. iRosser, as a means
to raise this mon&y. for a nominal con-
sideration. conveyed the land to the New
South Mining and Improvement Company,
of which he was still president. and on
June 26tn. 1889. conveyed the same to the
MINNEAPOLIS Improvement Company, OF
which Rosser was also president
All the deeds were duly recorded. but
the collateral agreement was not On
March 2Gth 1890, Banner sold and conveyed
to Rosser, In his own right and without
any stipulations and conditions. the lands
embraced in the former deeds ard certain
other parcels, a vendors lien being eN-
presslv reserved This deed refers to all
the previous lconveyances and sets aside
and annuls them.
On Nov. 18th. 1891, Banner agreed with
Rosser to purchase ana take BACK all the
unsold lots in satisfaction of the notes
given by. Rosser for the deferred payments
on the land conveyed in deed OF March
GOTH 1890 This agreement was entered
into pursuant to resolution of the board
of directors of the Minneapolis improve
ment Company, who, on December lst. 1881,
ordered a deed to zoe executed to Banner
in accordance with the agreement. rms
Banner refused to accept. but insisted on
the payment of the purchase money notes
secured by the vendors lien in the deed OF
March 10Th 1880 on the ground that the
deed of November 18th. 1891. was procured
by fraud Al the time OF the execution
of these two last named deeds there We're
no judgments against the Minneapolis I'M
provement Company. but in August, 1872
J. L. Dngus and others secured several,
which were duly docheted. and IN 1896 m
stituted suit to enforce same, and in 1891.
while the case of Banner VS.. Rosser, 81
Va, 23S. was pending, flied an amended
bill making the executor, devisees anu
heirs at law of Banner, who had died,
parties defendant to the original bill.
The Court OF Appeals sustained the opin-
ion of the Circuit Court in holding that
the right of the widow, devisees and heirs
at law of Banner deceased. to lots ana
land conveyed to Banner by the Minneapo-
lis Improvement Company by deed of De-
ce1lber ID. 1891, pursuant to the agreement
between Banner and Rosser, Of November
18th, 1891. is paramount to any Judgment
lien of any creditor of said company III
this cause, as to said lots.
MUTUAL ASSOCIATIONS.
Campbell VS. Eastern B. & l.. Associa-
ton. of New York. From the Circuit Court
OF Frederick county. Opinion by Judge
Harrison.
association. applied for and obtained
loan of 5000, which he secured by deed OF
trust, with ii pledge of his stock in said
company as collateral.
The appellant paid most of the notes
secured by the deed when due, but i'll
December 1898, brought suit to have the
contract rescnded and asked that the as
soc'ation be enjoi,2ed from collecting any
further sums. and that it be compelled tc
cancel the contract, return the unpaid
notes. and Fay TO him the amount he
had paid the association in excess Of the
loan and six per cent. interest.
The contract in question was a New York
contract. and IS TO be construed by the
laws of that State, but the case is the
same in principle, says the court. with
that of Building Association VS.. Tinsley,
90 Va. 80, when it was held such asso-
cations do not possess the power TO issue
certificates specifying fixed period for
the maturity of the stock, and if the bor-
rover had fully kept the contract he is
only entitled to receive what his stock had
earned
The terms and conditions in the certi-
ficate and the bylaws of the association
all form part of the contract, and must
be lived up 10 by the borrower. who, in
this case, is the member OF a mutual as
ISOLATION, and even if he understood the
had no legal right 10 rely on such repre-
sentations, which are not in The bylaws !.
and direct agreement of the company.
The decree of ire lower court in favor
IF the association is affirmed
THE SOUTHERN CASE.
Southern Railway Company vs.. Com
monweal;h OF Virginia. From the Circuit
Court of Shenandoah county Opinion by
Judge Buchanan.
This was proceeding under section IA
IF an act approved March 3D. 1892, to resu-
ate and control common carriers and de-
lining the duties of the Railroad Commits
'ioner IN that regard. The object of the
vas to compel the Baltimore
md Ohio Railroad and the Southern Rail
way, to re-establish a connection between
PASSENGER train No. il of the former and
20. So new No. 12) OF the latter road. at
'trasburg Junction. which had been made
,rior TO December 10th. 1899
The matter was taken up by the Rail-
Dad Commissioner. and was sent on to be
leard in the Circuit Court, which decided
hat the connection must be restored,
which the Southern tried to do. but the
Baltimore and Ohio failed to do so. and