Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-23
THE SUPREME COURT
Opinions in Two Cases From Nor
folk Handed Down.
Only Three Cases Disposed of by tho stato's
Highest Tribunal of Justice Yesterday
a Summary of tho Proceedings Fudge
Martin Sustained.

Only three opinions were handed
down in the Supreme Court of Appeals
yesterday. Judge Harrison rendered an
important decision as to the providing
of proper cars and methods of trans
portation by railroad companies, and
declares they cannot escape RESPONSE
bility for failure to provide proper
equipment for such purposes.
New York. Philadelphia and Norfolk
Railroad Company VS.. Cromwell From
the Law and Chancery Court of the
city of Norfolk. E. f. Cromwell insti-
tuted this action against the California
Fruit Transportation Company and the
New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk
Railroad Company. alleging joint liza
bility upon the defendant and seeking
10 recover damages alleged to have
been sustained by him, in consequence
or their failure, as common carriers, to
transmit with due care, certain straw
berries entrusted to them for the Phia-
delphia and Boston markets. The jury
were Informed that by agreement OF
counsel that they could find either
against, both or one of the defendants
or the plaintiff, and the jury returned
with n verdict against the New York.
Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad
company, anu dSSeSSeQ damages
SSl6.6i. The court gave Judgment in
accordance. The defendants appealed.
stating that the California Fruit Trans
portation Company, an Illinois corpora
non. owned the cars and that they were
liable. Judge Harrison. however, holds
that railway company cannot escape
responsibility for it's failure 10 provide
cars reasonably fit for the conveyance
OF the particular class of goods it un-
dertakes to carry by alleging that the
cars used for the purpose of its own
transit were the property of another.
and affirmed the judgment.
THE SOUTHERN WINS.
Southern Railway Company VS.. viii
cox and Dejarnette. From the Law
ana Chancery Court of the city of
Norfolk. The defendants in error
brought an action of trespass on the
case in assumpsit, and obtained judg-
ment against the plaintiff in error for
the sum of S1,747S7, with interest from
october 10, 1885, on the ground that the
plaintifr i'll error undertook to TRANSPORT
3,ooO tons of phosphate rock from Mt.
Peasant. Tenn, to Raleigh, y. C., at
the rate of S3.37 per ton of 22lO pounds
and thereafter charged freight thereon
or part thereof. at the rate of 1851
per ton OF 1000 pounds.
In his opinion Judge Cardwell says:
1T is q fundamental principle in the
law or contracts that every simple
agreement Or promise. in order to be
enforceable. must have a consideration
10 support it. 1t will be OBJ
served that the declaration case at bar
alleges no undertaking. promise or
agreement upon the part of the plain
tlits defendant in error), binding upon
them at the time of the defendants
promise sued on, was made.
Without passing upon any other ques-
lion arising in this cause, we are of
the opinion that the court below erred
In overruling the demurrer to the
dcclarat ton, and it's judgment will be
reversed, the demurrer sustained. the
verdict of the jury set aside, and the
cause remanded with leave of the de-
PENDANTS in error 10 amend their de-
claration If they be so advised
Thomas VS.. Jones. from the Circuit
Court Of Culpcper county.
In his opinion Judge Keith says: THE
iirst question presented for our deter
mination in this case is the motion to
dismiss the appeal, for want of proper
bond"
Judge Keith declared that the paper
signed by counsel for appellants and
appellee in no respect conforms to sec
ton $40, of the Code. and the appeal
must. therefore. be dismissed.
THE SUMMARY.
1uuEc James l\eitn presiding:
Thomas VS.. Jones. Circuit Court of
Culpepcr county. Dismissed for want
of proper bond
Judge II. II. Cardwell:
southern Railway Company VS.. Will
cox and De Jarnette. Law and Equity
Court of Norfolk. Affirmed
Postal Telegraph Company VS.. city of
Richmond.
Hastings Court city of Richmond
writ of error and supersedeas. Bond
$500.
Jones VS.. Jones Circuit Court Of
500.
Eldrdge VS.. Hubbard. Circuit Court
OF buckingham county. Appeal. Bond,
Newport News Electric Railway
company VS.. Bradford. Circuit Court
of Elizabeth City. Writ of error and