Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-23
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MAR TIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VlRCINlAN-PlLOT.
Notes OF Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.

RIVERvIEW LAND co. ". DANCE.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
March 80. 1900
WHERE THERE is A CONTRACT
OF AGENCY AND THE AGENT
MAKES ADVANCES, THE STAT
UTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGINS
TO RUN FROM THE TIME HE
HAD THE RIGHT TO DEMAD PAY
MENT FOR SAID ADVANCES.
PAROL EVIDENCE AS TO AN
AGREEMENT MADE BY THE
PRESIDENT OF A COMPANY AS
TO ITS NOTES WHICH HE HAD
u ENDORSED. LIMITING ITS LA
BILITY BY REASON OF THE EN-
DORSEMENT is INADMISSIBLE.
This was an action by Dance 6. Co.
against the Rivervicw Land Company
PENDANT appealed.
The court says:
The two instructions as given enun-
ciate the same principle, that where
there Is continuing agency the statute
OF limitations does not begin to run
against advances made by the agent
Tor the use OF the principle until the
termination of the agency, and may be
considered together.
as Il general proposition, where there
Is an undertaking or agency which re-
quircs a continuation of services. the
statute of limitations does not begin to
run against advances lawfully made by
the agent in the prosecution of the un-
dertaking or agency. or against COM
pensation for the services of the agent
until the termination of the undertake
Ing or agency. The law looks upon the
employment as an entire contract and
regards the claim for disbursement and
compensation as an entire demand, to
which the right docs not accrue until
the completion of the service or the
termination of the employment or
agency. But. although the eploymeilt
or agency is Il cntinulng one, yet If the
agent had the right 10 require pay
ment for advances or compensa ton for
services prior to the termina ton of the
agency, or IL the advances were rcpu-
dated by the principal as unauthorized
or not required TO be made by the ma
ture OF the employment or agency, the
statute begins to run from the time the
agent had the right TO demand pay
ment for his services or for advances
or. If the advances were renudinted as
unauthoriled I'd. from the time of such re-
pudiation. The statute begins to run
whenever the right OF action accrucs.
ana such right accrucs whenever the
agent has the right 10 demand payment
or his principal. and If refused to reply
10 the proper tribunals for relief So
that. although the agency be n cohtin-
uing one. If the agent has the right
prior to the termination of the agency,
10 demand payment of his compensa-
ton or for advances, the statute be-
Gins to run from the time he had tie
right to make such demand.
The court did not err in striking out
INC evidence of ii. w. Cole as to the
circumstances of tho endorsement Of
the Cnmpbc! notes by the defendant
company by him as president, ard as
to the understanding between him and
Dance as to the liability of the company
resulting from such endorsement. This
evidence tended directly to contradict
hnd vary the legal effec; of the written
Endorsement and WIS therefore mad
missible. And, besides, the notes were
offered In evidence TO prove that the
company. through It's president. became
affected at the time the endorsement
OF INC notes with notice that Mrs
Campbell had purchased from the COM
pany lots. with improvements thereon
ana that Dance & Co. were making i'm
proVemcnts for the company on its LOTS
ana evidence as to the circumstances of
the endorsement of the notes or of any
understanding between Danru-urrri-r
president OF the company as to its LA
D'lty upon the notes by reason of its
endorsement, could not affect or impair
the eviden.ial value of the notes for
the purpose for which they were in
troduced.
n.