The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-15

and answer, the court should nave us
missed the bill. This assignment was Sus-
tanned by the Court OF Appeals 1t was
also held that the transfer from MIS-.
.Nolie to BreesSee was not IN VOCATION Oh
the rules of equity as to trust estates
and was a free act on the part OF MIS-
Solle. and also that the price paid was
not go small or inadequate under the cir
| clmstances. as to raise the presumption
of fraud decree of Circuit Court re-
yersed and case rerlanded
Administration OF Trusts.
Hughes VS.. Williams, ct ais From the
Circuit Court of Campbell county. Opln-
ion by Judge Cardwell
This appeal is from d decree OF the CIR
cult Court relating to a trust deed made
by Joseph Z. Hughes to w. S. Hughes
and 3. f. Hughes, his sons, and proEld-
ing for the support of the grantor during
his lifetime and for the education and
| maintenance of his daughters In Decem-
! her. 1895. Mrs Dolly Williams, one of the
daughters who had in the mean tune
married. and her two minor sisters. by
their next friend. filed their Dill against
the appellant to secure a settlement OF the
accounts and a partition of the corpus OF
the trust estate The case was referred
| to commissioner who disapproved the
manner in which the trust had been adj
ministered. but allowed appellant a. bal
| ance due him OF S., So as of January Il
1897 which constituted q charge upon the
| farm conveyed by the deed of trust, and
| holding that the improvements put upon
| the farm by appellant should not be
! charged upon the corpus of the trust
| property.
| Exceptions were filed by appelees to
! this report which were sustained, and
| decree entered emitting the appeles to
| two-sevcnth interest as of July IL, 1896,
,St,1 rcrcJ
| From this decree this appeal was taken.
and the Court of Appeals sustained the
| report of the commissioner and reversed
| the decree complained of.
| The Summary.
! Judge James Keith, P:
| Glen vs. Brown~et ais. Circuit Court of
Henrico county. Affirmed.
Briggs VS.. Cook. Court of Law and
| Chancerv city of Norfolk. Affirmed.
| Bresee VS.. Bradficld & ais. Circuit
| Court of I4oudoun county. Reversed.
| Johnson. ct ais. rs. Barham, judge.
| Upon a petition for a writ of prohibition
to tho Corporation Court for the city of
| Newport News. Writ granted.
Judge r. II. Cardwell:
| Hughes VS.. Williams ct ais. Circuit
| Court of Campbell county. Reversed.
| Judge John a. Buchanan:
Richmond lee Company vs. Crystal Ice
| Company. Law and Equity Court city
I Of Richmond. Reversed.
| Parsons, etc. VS.. Newman. Circuit Court
| Of Henricos county. Affirmed.
| Judge Geo. NJ. Harrison:
! Schrieber Sons & Co. fvs. Citizens Bank
! of Norfolk. Law and Chancery Court city
| of Norfolk. "A fHrmed
Virginia Carolina Chemical Company
| VS.. Carpenter & Co. Law and Chancery
Court city of Norfolk. Reversed.
| Judge S. G. White:
| Sands Us. Durham. Circuit Court of
| Giles county. Affirmed,
Smith VS.. Forbes, Circuit Court of
Louisa county. Appeal and supersedeas.
| Bond, $500.
Horton VS.. Commonwealth. County
| Court of Russell. Writ of error awarded.
| Painter VS.. New River Mining Company,
! Corporation Court of Radford. Writ of
error and supersedeas. Bond, $500.
Consumers Ice-BcXz Company vs.. Je:l-
kins Law and Equity Court city of Rich
mond Writ of error and supersedeas.
| Fond. $500.
/ Brown VS.. Norfolk ard Western Railway
| Company. Writ of error and supersedeas.
Circuit Court of Pulaski county. Bond.
$500.
| Wood VS.. American National Bank.
t Law and Equity Court city of Richmond
Writ of error and supersedeas. Bond.
| 5000.
Court of sAYythe# county. Writ of error
/ refused
Crabtree Us. Buchanan. Circuit Court
| of SmythS county. Appeal refused.
| Jenkins VS. Commonwealth County
| Court Of Norfolk county. Writ OF error
refused.
Dunn VS.. Brosnan Law and Equity
/ Court city of Norfolk. Appea, refused
/ Harrison vs. Commonwealth. County
/ Court of Rockingham. Writ of error re-
! fused.
Core vs.City OF Norfolk Upon a peti-
ton to rehsaE;# Petition.refl
TO-DAYfS BUSINESS.
Other proceedings of the court to-day
were as follows:
| Wilson vs. Wall. Argued by w d.
| Cardwell and w. B. Smith for appellant
and a. 3. Dickinson for appellee and
submitted
| Allison Ms. Allisen's Executor and
others. Argued by Prank Christian for
appellant and continued until tomorrow.
The next cases to be called are City of
#Danville vs.. Robinson and Clarke VS..
Slect's Adrinistra tor.