The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-11-22
LIABILITY OF
The EMPLOYER
Judge Keith Renders Decision in
Important Railroad Case.
.WEsTERNsTATE H0sPITALLosEs
Cannot Recover from the Estate OF til. Late
Michael Coiner-A Dozen Opinions
We're Handed Town by
the Court.
WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL LOSES

A dozen opinions were handed down III
the Supreme Court of Appeals yester-
day. All of these cases were argued be-
fore the court at Stanton or at Wyrhe-
vile.
The Western State Hospital lost its
suit to recover money from the estate of
the late Michael Conner, Of Augusta
county. Judge Keith handed down the
opinion In this case.
Michael Coner, who died about
thirty years ago. left, among 9TH
heirs, d son, samuel l.. Conner, who
was lunauc and an inmate of the asy-
lum at Staunton. In his will there was
a codicil in the following words: Don't
let Samuel L. Conner suffer-" The Cir
cult Court of Augusta county was asked
to construe the will, and the appeal WIS
from the decision Of that tribunal. The
Circuit Court decided that Samuel Coiner
was entitled TO support and maintenance
out of the estate of the testatcr. Tn,
sum of 5000 was set apart to be applied
TO his support as long as he might live.
and at his death the principal to be dis
tributed among the rcsiduary legatees.
This case was in the courts. or before
a commissioner thereof. for several
years. X appears that all of the sun,
of $1,000 save $St3.46 WAS ( aid over for
the support Of Samuel Coner The in
sane man died in 1900 and the balance
due the hospital was sued for-that is.
the Circuit Court of Augusta was asked
to reinstate the case upon its docket and
direct a commissioner to take an account
of the fund of $1,000
The appellate court affirmed the de-
cree of the lower tribunal, in which it
was held that the interest set apart for
the support of Samuel Coiner had been
wholly exhausted.
RichmGnd Firm Sues.
The case Of Alsop, NIosby G. Co. VS.. Cat
lett came up from the Circuit Court of
Tazewell. r. 3. Davis. OF Petersburg. Is
counsel for Catlett & Jenkins. or rather
the creditors in bankruptcy of that firm.
Catlett & Jenkins made an assignment
III 1892, and Alsop, Mosby s: Co. brought
suit to set it aside as fraudulent. The
Court Of Appeals held that no fraud had
been committed, but did not pass on the
rights of the creditors Another suit was
entered, and this was the second time it
has come to the Supreme Court .
Mrs. Coleman, the mother of CatIeu,
bought out Catlett &; Jenkins, agreeing
that they should run the business anu
pay her, then the other profits should go
to the wives of Catlett and Jenkins. AL
sop Mosby & Co. held that the men real
" owned the business, and the transfer
was simply to defraud their creditors. The
court to-day held that no fraud lad been
shown. and that Catlett and Jenkins We're
entitled to reasonable compensation for
running the business for their wives. and
if this compensation was more than
enough to support their families. then the
creditors were entitled to the surplus
This simply loses the suit to Alsop Mos
by & Co., as the property is adjudged
not liable.
Railroad Wins.
The case of the n. and W. Railroad
against Percy Cromer's administrators,
from the Circuit Court Of Roanoke city,
was reversed. The lower court gave
verdict in favor Of Cromer's heirs, and
this decision reverses 1t.
Cromer was a fireman and was killed
in collision in the yard at Pulaski jan
uary S. 1900. The passenger train ran
into three freight cars that had escaped
from siding. Judge Keith delivered the
opinion. In this case the court held:
when 1t Is said that an injury to an
employee caused by the default Of a fellow
servant concurring with the negligence
Of the company, renders the company liza
BILE as though it only were al fault. 1t is
necessary to the application Of the prin
ciple that the negligent act of the fellow
servant and that of the company should
CoiiSdi III FiouuShiS vic ACSoiS' StiiI % "
say. must be simultaneous. both Of their
operation and eftectual at the time OF the
accident, and not stand in the relation of
remote and proximate causes to the event,
for if the latter be the case. then the sit
uaton would be controlled by the priuci-
pie Just adverted to- that though a negli-
gent act upon the part of the company
may DO established. the plaintiff would
not be entitled to recover if by reasona-
Bile care upon his part the consequences
of the defendants negligence could have
been avoided
The Summary
Following is the summary of the pro-
ceedinss of the court yesterday:
Judge James Keith. P:
Norfolk and Western Railway Com