The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-30

erly overruted, as was tHe stIiotiott %
plaintiff in error in arrest of judSueht.
The judgment of the Law and Equity
Court against the defendant in the case
was affirm I'd.
CONTINUING AGENCY.
R;verview Land Co. VS.. Dance Co.
Opinion by Judge Riley. Appea:ed from
the Corporation Court Of Danvflie
This was an action by the real estate
firm Of Dance & Co.. OF Danville. to re-
cover certain moneys advanced and eA-S
penses incurred by them as the agents or |
the Riverview Land Co. in improving !
and disposing of certain lots in the SUD
surbs of the City of Danville-
The evidence as to the extent OF the
authority of the agents is IN conflict.
While the defendant company denies that
the agents possessed authority to con-
struct houses on its lots and charge It
with the expense of said improvemeass.
Dance, the managing partner OF the nrni.
and who upon the incorporation or the
Riyerview Land Co. became its secretary
and treasurer, testified positively that
his firm was expressly authorized by tEe
owners of the property TO erect the SAID
buildings. and also that If the Minute
Book, containing the proceedings OF TIE
company. which was lost could be fochc,
it would show the regular proceedings OF
the board Of directors of the company
and the resolutions authorizing the con-
structfcn of the houses, and the borrow
ing of the money 10 reimburse the agents
for the moneys advanced by them in the
erection of the buildings. etc.
Deeds were executed by the company
to purchasers of several of the lots on
which Improvements were made by the
agents, in which the improvements as
we'll as the land were expressly men,
| toned and conveyed, and their cost, add
| ed to the list price OF the lots. included
| in the amount expressed as the conside-
ration for the conveyances.
The court said: considering the svi-
! dence upon the writ of error, in accord
ence with the principles we are required
| to apply 10 it, the verdict of the jury be-
! ing for the plaintiff. it must be held that
| the agents possessed the authority clat,re1
| by them; not. however. by virtue CT their
| business merely as real estate agents,
but because it was specifically conferred
upon them.
J The trial court at the instance OF the
| plaintiff gave the following instructions:
| The court instructs the jury that
| where there is continuing agency in
! which the agent advances money for the
use OF the principal the statute OF limi-
| tations does not begin to run from the
| date of said advances. but only from
! the termination of the agency. IN suit
| by the agent against the principal for
I such advances
| And it refused to, give the defendant
| an instructionato the effect that so much
| of the account in question as accrued,
I and became due more than three years
| prior to the institution of this suit I'M
I less based on some promise or obligation
/ in writing is barred by the statute of
| limitations but did give the instruc-
I ton with the following condition: ''Un-
less the agency of the plaintiffs was
continuing one. In which case the statute
of limitations does not begin to run until
the termination of the agency" To both
Of these rulings the defendant excepted.
The Court of Appeals held that as
given the instructions forbid the jury
to compute the running OF the statute
against any item in the account sued on
prior to the termination of the agency
although the jury should believe from
the evidence that the right to demand
payment of such item accrued. or that it
had been repudiated more. than three
years prior to the institution of the
suit, and that the said Instructions. II
given, should have been accompanied
with the qualification that, II the jury
believed that Dance & Co. had the right
| to dema nd payment of the advances
| during the continuance of the agency
| and prior to it's termination. the statute
| commenced to run from the time the
| right accrued to make such demand, or
If the advances or any of them had
been repudiated by the defendant COM
pany when presented for want of aI-
thority to make them, from the time
OF such reputation.
For the error in giving these instruc-
tions without the qualification hereinbe-
fore mentioned. the judgment OF the
Corporation Court was reversed, the
verdict of the jury set aside and q new
. trial awarded.
NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORS
NEGLIGENCE.
Dinsee. WeinInan & Co. VS.. Unrues Adj
ministratriX. Opinion uy Judge Buchanan
Appealed from Circuit Court OF Lynch
| burg.
This action was brought by the admin
/ I istratrix of john w. Unrue. deceased. TO
recover damages from r. S. Terry and
VI. II. Dtnsee. partners, trading under the
firm name of Dinsee. Weinmau & Co.,
for causing the death of the plaintiff 5
: intestate whilst working as a common
laborer in a barytese mine of the defend
| ants.
Upon the trial of the cause there was a
verdict and Judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, to which this writ of error was
? flwacded.
The first assignment OF error is that the
court erred in overruIing the deIllurres
to the fourth count of the declaration,
which was upon the ground that 1t did
, | not show the connection between the acct-
. dent and the alleged acts of negligence.
, | This action was held not to be error. The
, Court said: Whilst it might. have been
better pleading, perhaps. to have set out
! more fully the manner in which the al
legged acts Of negligence caused the injury
!. | complained of, still we are of opinion thi
their connection is averred with sufficient
| fulIness and clearness to enable the de-
| PENDANTS to understand the case made
!, in that court. and 70 know what they hat
: to meet, and under our practice this Is
. all that IS required"
It was also held that the Court DID
not err in refusing to exclude the evidence
Of the inccrnpeteucy of the foreman II
charge of the defendants works at the
time of the accident. upon the ground
urged by the defendants, that there was
allegation in the declaration connecting
$ the injury complained of with the alleged
incompetency. Exceptions were taken II
the instructions of the trial court, blu
they were all held to be proper.
e The assignment of error based upon tht
4 refusal of the trial court to set aside
: the verdict was also overruled. The cour
i said: The questions involved are those
r Il ~ r.r,;ore,r,a negligence