The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-29
BOARDS ACTION
IS SUSTAINED
Supreme Court Refuses Mandamus
in Essex Case.
REMEDY LIES WITH PEOPLE.
The Action of the Supervisors as TO Erecting
Fircproof Clerks Office Discretionary.
Executors Rights - Admission
OF Evidence.
REMEDY LIES WITH PEOPLE.

The most interesting to the public at
large Of the cases in which the Supreme
Court of Appeals handed down opinions
yesterday was that of Broaddus ct ais
rs. The Board of Supervisors of Essex
County. appealed from the Circuit Court
Of Essex. and affirmed. in which IL pc
.ition for a mandamus TO compel the
board tG erect d fire-proof clerks office
was refused.
The case OF Clarke vs.. Suth's Admir-,
appealed from the Circuit Court of Rap
pahannock county. and reversed, presents
some delicate points of law regarding the
.1Gmissbility of evidence showing the
mental condition OF tho intcStatc who
i.crt The account, in az action by the
administrator Of the deceased upon
store account
a full and clear discussion of the limi-
tationS of right of executor to insist
upon charging the real estate OF ms de-
ceased IN the hands OF the heirs or de-
visees with the payment Of his claims
for money expended by him in settling
claims of creditors of tho deceased, after
The personal assets OF the deceased had
been exhausted, will be found in the opin-
ion rendered by Judge Whitue in the
case of Leayell ct ais VS.. Smiths ES ors.
appealed from the Circuit Court of Prince
William county and reversed.
Nlandamus Refused.
Eroaddus ct ais vs. Board of Supervisors
of Essex County. From Circuit Court
of Essex county. Opinion by Judge
Buchanan.
This is an appeal from the ruling of
the Circuit Court, which refused % award
a nandamus compelling the board OF
supervisors Of Essex county to erect
iire-proof clerks Office.
Section 925 of the Code requires the
Board of Supervisors OF every county
to provide a courthouse, clerks cflce,
and Jail. and section @ provides that
every such clerk $ Office snail be ire
proof.
The Court Of Appeals sustains the
lower court in refusing the lnandamus.
stating that -.cne of the characteristics
OF a proceeding by mandamus is that II
the furctioilarJ whose conduct is COM
;,iained of is by law to exercise: any
discretion that discretion VIII not be
controlled by a writ of mandaEnus; Tor
that would be to transfer the discretion
which tie law commits TO the 1unction-
cry 10 the court which undertakes to
award the writ. The preservation OF the
record OF the various courts Of the Com
rlonwealth is OF the highest Importance.
and the duty OF providing 1re-proof
clerks offices to prevent their destruc-
lion by fire should be faithfully per-
formed The boards upon whom this
duty is imposed are responsible TO the
people who elected them, and If they DO
cot properly exercise the discretion
vested in them, the people have the
remedy in their own hands.
Judgment affirmed
Mental Condition Admissible.
Clarke VS. sieet's Admir- From the Cir
cult Court o. Rappahannocl1 COUNT.
Opinion by Judge Buchanan.
This was a proceeding by mo:.o:l under
secrion Sell OF the Code IS amended The
demand of the D:aintiff lthe defendant
IN error consisted of TWO bonds and a
store account The defendant plead non
assumpsit and set off, upon which issue
was Joined. The principal error assigned
Is TO the action of the trial court IN re-
1'usipg TO admit the evidence introduced
s,v the defendant, who sought to prove
that the mental condition of the PLAIN
1;ff's intestate. in whose handwriting the
accounts were kept. was such during
The period the store account was run
-,ins that he vas incapable o. keeping his
books correctly
1t was held on appeal that this eVl-
dence should have been admitted. An
ether assignment of error is that PLAIN
liTs instruction No. !. which told the
Jury what they should do if they believed
that certain negotiable notes referred to
were accommodation notes, ought not to
have we're given. because there was no
evidence tending 10 show that they were
accommodation paper.
II WAS held that as no objection was
made TO the giving of this instruction
in the court below. it could not be raised
for the first time on appeal. judgment
reversed verdict set aside. and case re-
manded.
Executors Rights.
aa,,ell ct ais VS.. Smiths EN'ors. From
the Circuit Court of Prince William
county. opinion by Judge Wniulc.
This case rests ui>on an appeal from
The ruling OF the trial court which over
,r,,ed the following exceptions taken by
.f,e defendants to the report OF the COM
missioner OF accounts. who had reported
The debt of the plaintiffs as subslst-
Ing demand against the estate for we
nayment of which the real estate in the
bsnds of The devisees was responsible,
an, that the rents and profits would not
discharge the same in five years:
a., Because the debt was not sustaintS
by any evidence in the cause. CD BE
cause the ex pa.te settlement, exhibited
Win the bill, was not evidence against
I'll. defendants. ither prima facie or
otherwise, and go because the debt, II
II ever existed. was barred by the statute
of limitations.
rho decision of tho Court of Appeals
relates principally to the second assign
n.ent OF error. or exception, ana the
court held that executors are only au-
,horized and required TO pay the debts
of the decedent out of the personal es-
tate. and IL. transcending the limits of
their dGty, they see fit to pay debts with
their own means. all they can ask or
expect is to DO substituted 10 the rights
az he creditors whose demands ttey