Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-17

men laws vi virginia are declared to
be constitutional.
The decision is as follows:
I'm passing upon the matter OF the
Reese Manufacturing Company, u pro-
ceeding in Bankruptcy, involving large
interests. and in which nearly the
whole bar of Tide Water Virginia is
Interested ON the one side of the other.
Judge Waddill yesterday decided that
the Mechanics lien law of Virginia.
as we'll as the State Statute giving
liens TO those furnishing supplies and
materials to mining and manufacture
ing companies. were constitutional.
and that the Bankruptcy act OF 1898.
did not invalidate the liens acquired
under these State Statutes; he fur
Their decided that the filing of me-
chanics' or supply lien under the
State Statutes Was not such IL pro-
cecding at law or in equity as was
avoided by the bankruptcy act.
'Fhis is most important decision
and sustains liens of the character
mentioned secured under the State
Statutes and has been one of the most
generally controveried legal questions
presented by the Bankruptcy law.
RYANS. y. l.. CASE.
The Ryan Seaboard Al Line case oc-
cupied the attention of Judge Waddill
in the United States District Court yes
leTu1E. IT n1u DcCn announced lnal
the court would render IL decision on
the plaintiffs application for leave To
file an amended and supplemental bill,
and there was in court when Judge
Waddill assembled the bench about
noon. brilliant array of counsel.
Those who appeared for the Seaboard
Air Line We're Judge Leigh II. Watts
OF Portsmouth,; Judge l.. l.. Lewis and
Gen. Edgar Allan. OF Richmond. and
Mr.. III. l.. Bond, OF Baltimore. BESIDES
these were present MIR. John Shelton
Williams. of lsichmcnd. president of
the Seaboard Air Line, and MIR. l.. St
John. OF Norfolk, vice president OF that
system.
The plaintiff was represented by Mr..
William II, Page. of New York: Mr. u.
Lawrence Groner. of this city, and Mr.
w. b. Marhury. of Baltimore.
There was an unusually large num-
Der of attorneys and citizens in the
court ROOM
Judge Waddll announced his deci-
sion as follows:
In the Circuit Court of the United
states for the Eastern District of Vir-
SHELTON Williams ct ais, on the motion
OF the plaintiff to lille an amended and
supplemental bill. Judge Waddnl hand
ed down the following decision;
The matter presented for the consd-
Grafton OF the Court Is whether or not
the plaintiff should have leave 10 file
an amended and supplemental bill. in
this cause.
Without passing upon any other
question or determining the sulIicency
or insuilicency OF any pleading pre-
sented. think the plaintiff should have
leave TO lille this supplemental and
amended bin as prayed for, the saric
when fled 10 be subject TO all proper
objection to be taken thereto by exccp-
ton, demurrer plea or other proper de-
Tense, and it Will be so ordered and
subsequently, entered the following or
der:
This cause came on this day IN he
heard on the motion OF tie uc,npinin-
ant. pursuant 10 notice, for leave TO
!ile supplemental. Bill and was argued
by council
"On consideration whereof. ne court,
without passing upon any other CUES
ZION, or determining the sutliciency orl
iDsuihcicncy ct the said bill. doth grant
leave 10 file The same. and Tie same
was filed accordineiv'
TITS me COUNSEL Tor piai1tiff fled
e;eh; oemurrc's. which were sat down
for areument some day durug lhe frs.
week in December
Before the decision was a.n2unced
counsei for the Plaintiff moved t. re-
lect, or 10 strike from tile record the
affidavit. reference to which has been
the subject OF newspaper comment |
upon the ground that the same Wa
10 defendants counsel and without
their having opportunity TO examine
the same and aScertaning its purpor;
Tho court. while reserving final dc
cision, stated that as the affidavit was
presented and referred to in the ar
gument and the introduction not or !
iected to by counsel for defendants at |
the hearing on the 21th of September !
and IL was then marked filed by tho
clerk. it was not clear how it could
be rejected: that the amended and 5
supplemental bill having been fled the
affidavit became immatcrial. and that /
il could have no bearing whatever in !
the final determination OF the case up-
on it's merits The court also init
mated that had objection been made /
at the time the affidavit was handed |
the court, 1t would in all probability |
have been rejected rs irrelevant &c.
The court postponed the final de- I
cision that counsel on either side might |
lille notes.
In the Law and Chancery Court judg- |
ments We're as follows:
W. ii. Taylor & Co. against Thomas
A. Frewen. suit on account, there was
4 judgment for the plaintiff for Sl5l.16. !
George #. Knapp against Thomas ~ |
Frewen. suit on account. there was a 4
judgment for the laintiff for S19i.49.
NEW SUITS FILED.
l.. D. Scott s. Co. against T.. l.. Paste /
and J.. F.. Paste. debt; damages $i5o.
In the Court of Law and chancery
Yesterday the Security Real Estate |
Company entered suit AGAINST Mary
Lucy Miller and G.. r. Miller. Jr., in /
assumpsit; damages $500.
Tho Court of Law and Chancery was (.
engaged yesterday in the law suit of /
Norris Siiyerstein against Marcus
Marx. which was continued to next
term.
JUDGE HANCKEL's COURT.
Judge Hanckel granted q charter to |