The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-22

TILE TIMES: RIC
Company, 80 Va, $40. relied supon~by ap-
pellant to maintain that an advertisement
! of a sale of real estate for less than
thirty days was not reasonable, does not
supply the required authority, a s that
opinion was rendered by court having
only three judges sitting, one of whom
rendered a vigorous dissenting opinion.
Judgment of lower court was affirmed.
Five-Year Rule.
yashon, ETC.. VS.. Barrett, etc. From the
ChaHcery Court OF the city of Rich
mond. Opinion by Judge Buchanan
The object of this suit was to set aside
a conveyance Of land and. a transfer Of
an insurance policy, made by George Va
sllon, Sr., upon the ground of Inadequate
consideration. The court below sustained
the plea of the statute of limitations. On
the day the order was entered Samuel III.
P1lliam petitioned the court alleging that
the. complainant had for a valuable con-
sidcration assigned him the debt sued on,
and prayed to be made a party complain
ant in the cause with his assignor, or be
substituted In his stead as sole complain 2
ant, in order to file a supplemental bill. In
which he alleged that the transfer COM
planned of in the original bill was fraudu-
lent, etc. The court refused to permit him
to enter the suit or to file the supplement
tai bill, holding that the petitioner was
pendente lite purchaser, and not emitted
to be made a party, and that the supple
mental bill contained no matter which
could not have been set up in the original
bill From that decree this appeal was
taken The Court Of Appeals sustained
the court below, and hold that the fact
that no settlement Of the partnership mat
ters between Vashon, Sr., and Nashon, Jr.,
the complainant, had been made did not
postpone the running OF the statute Until
settlement was made, but begins to run
from the date the conveyance complained
of is recorded.
AS to the transfer of the policy of in
surance complained of, it was held that
the burden of showing that the transfer
was made more than five years before
the institution of this suit was upon the
party pleading the statute, and that the
respondent having failed to show TINS the
Chancery Court erred in sustaining the
plea and Diminishing the bill. in this par
tiorlar, and to that extent the decree APP
ptaled from is reversed, but in all others
it is sustained.
Cause renanded for further proceedings.
Proper Appliances.
White VS. N. L. P. and N. r. r. Co.
From the Circuit Court OF Acconac.
Opinion by Judge Harrison.
This action was brought to recover
damages for the destruction. Of mill ana
contents, alleged to have been caused by
fire communicated from the engine OF
the defendant company.
There We're two trials of this case. the
first verdict being for the plaintiff, winch
was set aside by the court, and the
second verdict was for defendant
The question on appeal is whether
the Circuit Court erred in setting aside
the first verdict. The Court of Appeals
held that the evidence showed that the
company's engine was provided with the
proper appliances and therefore had
discharged it's duty and was not liable.
The judgment of the Circuit Court was
affirmed.
The Summary.
The following is a summary OF the
courts proceedings:
Judge James Keith, P.
Horton VS.. Commonwealth. County
Court Of Russell county. Affirmed
Judge sR. 81. Cardweil.
Davis VS. Commonwealth County Court
Of Fauauier county. Reversed. Concurrlns
opinion by Keith, P.
Baker vs. Buckner. Circuit Court OF
Cufpeper county. Reversed. Baker vs..
Briggs. Circuit Court of Culpeper county.
Affirmed.
Judge John A Buchanan.
yashon etcz-vs Barrett ETC. Chancery
Court city of Richmond. Affirmed in part
and reversed IN part. 49,
Galway VS.. Saunders, etc. Circuit Court
of Franklin county. Affirmed.
Judge George NJ. Harrison:
White VS.. New York, Philadelphia and
Norfolk Railroad Company. Circuit
Court of Acconac county. Affirmed.
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Poto-
mac Railroad Company VS.. Johnson and
ais. Circuit Court of Henrico county.
Appeal dismissed as improvidently
awarded
Judge s. G.. Whittle:
Wilson VS.. Wall. Circuit Court OF
Cumberland cosnty. Affirmed.
Gray VS.. Gray. Circuit Court OF Cul-
pepper county. Writ OF error refused.
Horton VS.. Commonwealth. County
Court of Russell county. Writ. of error
refused.
Cooper VS.. Southern Railway Com
pany. Corporation Court city OF, Dam
vile. Writ of error refused.
Glenn VS.. Williams. Circuit Court of
Tazewell county. Appeal refused.
Enright vs. Newport News Ship Com
pany. Circuit Court Of Warwick county.
Writ of error refused.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Other proceedings Of the court were as
follows:
Leavell and others VS.. Smiths execu-
tors. Argued by G.. D. Gray for appel
liant and submitted.
South Roanoke Land Co. US. Roberts.
Argued by c. J. Rixey and John S. Bar
bour for appellant, and J. L. Jeffries and
G. D. Gray for appellee. and submitted.
The next cases to be called are Nelson
VS.. Triplett and Doyles administrator VS..
Beasley and others.
Want Nne.ii Day.
The employees of the Richmond Pas