Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1900-10-03
The Lovett-Perry Suit.


gives the following: The powers of .
partner to bind his firm was one of
the questions decided In the cause of
Tazewsll Lovstt's Administrator W.
Emma NJ. Perry, from the Circuit
Court of Clarke county. Judge Keith
delivered the opinion, which in the
main afiirms the lower court, but re-
verses 30 much of the decree az al
lowed two sums, of 81 900 each, ad-
vsncsd by Mrs. Dibrell and Joshua
Hatcher, of Loudoun county, to be
treated ~ capital of the Tazewell
Lovett Rolling Mill.
Emma NJ. Perry and Tazewell
Lovett entered into a contract by
which she agreed to advance to him
$4,000 for the erection and equip
msnt of = steam Touring mill ut
Berryville, Va, and to further ad-
vance the additional sum of $4,000
to be used In the business. She
complied with both contract agree
msnts, except that In the matter of
the additional sum she advanced
So,OOO instead Oh 4,0OO-
During the conduct of the bust
ness, which appears to have been a
disastrous failure, 7. J. Lovett, .
nephew of Tszewell Lovett, borrowed
$1,000 from Q Mrs. Dibrell, of Lou
doun county, and further sum of
81 900 from Joshua Hatcher, of that
county. For these sums the Lovetts
executed their bonds. In Novemb Der
1898, Tszewell Lovett died, and Miss
Perry soon instituted 8 chsncery
suit, for the recovery of the $4,000
advanced for the prosecution of the
milling business. a previous trans
action between Miss Perry and Taz-
well Lovett had extinguished the
loan of $4,000 and left her AN OBJ
legation to him of $4,000.
Il. j. Lovett, as administrator of
Tazewsll Lovett, answered Miss. Per
rvs bill. In his answer be set out
that the $4,000 secured from Di-
brell aud Hatcher WAS used in the
operation and maintenance of the
mill, and, therefore, WAS debt for
which the complainant was respon-
sible, il the assets proved insufficient
for its payment.
The opinion on this point. reviews
the original contracting be-
tween Mics Perry and Tszewell Low
EFT, wherin 1t appears that the form
er WAS 10 furnish u stipulated capt.
tai, which she did, and more, while
the latter was 20 cor tribute his time,
labor and skill, and nothing else.
The opinion holds that there is no
evidence showing that she had any
knowledge that any Sdvsnce IN mon
ey to the business had ever been
made by Lovett, and there could of
course, have been 20 acquiescsnce or
ratification on her part. "In this
case" says j Judge Keith, there WAS
no sntecedent authority given, but
1t was distinctly denied by the terms
of the agreement by which the part
nership between Lovett and Miss
Perry was created. If it is not
among the implied powers of a part
ner to bind his firm for his share of
the capital agreed to be subscrib bed, q
fortiori, he cannot bind the firm for
capital placed by him in the bust
ness for derogation of an express
stipulation TO the contrary between
himself and co-partner." The dec
rec places the cost on the appellee.
Oan Sue Judge in His own Circuit.
A special, dated Sept 18th, to the
Baltimore Sun from Winchester SAWS:
Tbs Virginia Court of Appeals today
handed down q decision IL the case
of Judge L. W. Harrison, W. Roy
Stephenson aud Il. +. BYRD, of this
city, against ohm l.. Wissler, Of Shen-
AndoAh county. The court decided
IN favor of she appellants. The case
has attracted wide attention, as it in
wolves the right of Judge to have q
case III which ne ID interested tried
within his jurisdiction when another
Judge presldes at the trial. Judge
Harrison, who is Judge of this Judi
cial circuit, Mr.. Stephenson and Mr..
Byrd, entered suit against Mr.. Wiss-
Ter to COLLECT an attorneys fee due
them for defending him in case.
Wisslsr claimed that Judge Harrison,
being = judge of the circuit, had no
right to sue anyone or TO be sued by
anyone IN any county in his circuit.
Judge NicOl, Of the Manassas circuit,
who wss called in to sit in the case,
upheld this view, but today's decision
of the higher court reversed Judge
NicoPs opinion. This is the first tins
such . question has ever been raised
In Virginia court. 1t is said that
the effect of Judge Nicols decision
would have been to deprive members
Of the Court of Appeals, who have
jurisdiction over the whole State.
from the right to sue or to be sued.
Resolutions OF Respect.
At meeting of j. Z. b. Stuart
Camp, @. v, the following resolu-
tons were passed:
lst That this Csmn in copop,or ,,,;,b