The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-16

SUPREME COURT
HAS ADJOURNED: j.
Number ofInteresting Opinions We're
Handed Down.
CONTESTS OVER OLD WILLS WILL
In Case of Eayes Against Vial the De
cree Of the Lower Court Was Ar
flrmcd-Hirth Against Fl irth.
other Cases.
Number ofInteresting Opinions We're
CONTESTS OVER OLD WILLS.

! . . . 3 :
Othe'r Cases.
Among the cases in which opinions We're
| delivered yesterday in the Court Of sAp-
| peais were some involving questions of
| considerable interest; both to the slaymen
as we'll as>to the members of the bar.
| The case of Eaves VS.. Vial, appealed
| from the Chancery Court Of the city OF
| Richmond, involves some delicate POINTS
/ of law as to the admissibility OF parol
| evidence to establish an agreement 10
| reconvey property, which has been al
| ready granted by deed, and it embraces
! incidentally a concise statement OF the
| doctrine of trusts and the application
! OF the statute of frauds to. such
| conveyance.
| The case of Eirth VS.. Hirth, appealed
from the Law and Equity Court for the
| city of Richmond. presents an interesting
! point in the law reat ting to the rights uI
| married women.
The case of Poindexter vs.. May. APP
| pealed from Louisa county, decides me
| status o. the law as to fences IN this
State. and the opinion Is an exhaustive
| trea tment of the subject in all It's phases
| The case of Covington VS.. Griili,i s AL
| ministrator and the case OF Male vs.
| Parrish ct ais. both appealed tom tar
| Circuit Court of Culpeper county. relate
to the doctrines OF laches or unreason-
| able delay and SEGREGATION, respacttva!y,
| and the opinions are quite eiaror&a IN
! each case.
Covinston vs. Grinin's Administrators.
| Circuit Court of Culpeper county.
| zachary Griffin died in 1852. leaving a
! will. which was admitted to probate that
wear. and Mr. James NJ. Griffin, son,
| qualified as executor, and II. 1eof az
! tempted an ex parte settlement Il MS
! accounts before Il commissioner. ana
! proof OF debts against the estate being
| called for 10y Thomas I. Griffin. ano-ner
| son. claimed his father indebted to him
! BY bond in the sum OF s2.DGo. The ex
rarte settlement was not made, and In
| 1856. j. NJ. Griffin fled a bill in his own
| right as executor. praying Tor setse-
| ment of the estate. reference was
| made to commissioner, and in 1850
/, c.nort was flied, showing balance due
! by the executor OF s1.266.33 and two debts
| AGAINST the estate, one in favor Of Amy
| tiaii. principal and interest. S!41.sl, and
another due by bond to 7. l. Griffin,
| principal and interest at date. being sS3,-
| HIS.
The after died in 1857. and James M.
I
! tors, becoming the administrator OF the
| creditor and executor of the debtor. The
! estate Of the latter, however, consisted
| mostly OF slaves, and the balance IN
money, the proceeds Of their hire. The
| commissioners report was excepted TO-
but was never passed upon ara the re-
! port was uncontirmed. No further action
! was taken until 1887. when srippfe-
mental bill and bill of revoir' was fled.
! In the bin there is no circumstance al
| esetd which explains, accounts for, or
| extcnuates the failure to prosecute 1ne
| original suit. and the only assets Is q
| small tract of land in the possession OF
! Thomas Fl. Covinston, who holds it under
| the will of James NJ. Griffin. Covinston
| answered the bill, denying the existence
| of the debt. asserting that the proof of
| its existence is insufficient. and alleging
! that 1t was paid off.
! The court is of the opinion that Zach
| airy Griffin executed the bond In contro-
| versy in his lifetime. and that the decree
! entered in the original suit stopped the
| meaning Of the statute of limitations as
| to all the debts due by Zachary Griffin
F; The debts must have persisted long ago
| with the statute of limitations. The de-
| cree Of lower court is reversed and sup
| Elemental bill dismissed Opinions by
| Judge Keith. Judge Cardwell dissenting
NALLE VS.. PARRISH.
| Nails vs.. Parrish. ct ais. Circuit Court
| of Culpeper county. Andrew Keyser pur-
| chased in 1878 certain real estate for 81
| 900, at a sale made under a decree OF the
| court In the suit of BickerS VS. Parrish
| and made cash payment of one-third and
| bound himself to convey the righS ana
| title Of the same to his daughter, Sallie
| T. Naile, when the land was paid for.
T! upon condition that she pay the three
bonds given by him for deferred payment
! . Thomas.
| his wife. were put in possession. and
| when the last bond fell due. Joseph
| Male, having paid the first two bonds,
agreed to convey the property to MIS-
! Thomas, his sister. If she would pay the
| last bond. In order to do this. she soid
| James NJ. Shadrach a part OF It, Nalie
| and wife brought suit in 1886 to obtain
! conveyance of the land and contested
! the right of Shadrach's widow and heirs
to a conveyance of the land bought E
| him. Decree of lower court reversed.
! Opinion by Judge Rely.
EAvDs VS.. VIAL.
Eaves VS.. Vial. Chancery Court of
Richmond. Appellee alleges that his fa-
Their, E. P. Vial, died in 1883. leaving GER
tain real estate, which he directed should
be held by his widow until his youngest
child became of age, and then it should
be equally divided among his 1--WE chill,
the children, Mrs. Sheppard. her Interest
was assigned and conveyed: in 1858 the
widow of the testator died. and in 1897
the residue Of the estate was partitioned
in suit brought for the purpose. and the
share of the appellee was assigned to his
sister, the appellant, she having acquired
the legal title thereto by a deed Of Feb
ruary 6. 1895. He alleges that one-half of
this property belonged to him, he having
executed the deed to her voluntarily and
on condition it should be reconveyed to
him on request She, however, claimed
that there was no such agreement De-
cree affirmed. Opinion by Judge Buch-=
anan.
POINDENTER VS.. MAY.
Poindexter VS.. May. Circuit Court of
Louisa county. The bill alleges that the
appellee is the owner of certain lands en-
closed by fences, and that the appellant
has trespassed on them. An injunction
was granted by lower court. andAthe ap-
pellant's demurrer overruled. Decree af-
trmed Opinion by Judge Harrison.
HIRTH VS.. HIRTH.
Hirth VS.. Hirth. Law and Equity Court
Of Richmond. The plaintiff In error in