The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-02-13
THE TAYLOR CASE
IS REVERSED
Insurance Company Had Right to In
crease Assessments.
ANOTHER RICHMOND DECISION.
Circuit Court Of Richmond Reversed
III Case of Richmond Ice Company
VS.. Crystal Ice Company-Otiicr
Opimious Handed Down.

Va. Crystal Ice Company-Otiicr
Opinions Handed Down.
The Supreme Court delivered opinions
Sl quite 4 number of cases yesterday.
The most important locally was that il
The case OF The Mutual Reserve Funf Life
Association vs.. Taylor, from the Law and
Equity Court OF Richmond, and reversed,
in which IL was held that such asSocia-
lions have the right To increase ,heir
plans OF assessment after the policies have
been issued.
The Richmond Ice Co. Us. Crystal Ice
Co, from the Circuit Court OF the city
OF Richmond ana reversed, is probably
:. leading case on tic nature OF repairs
required by lcssces-
Pace rs. Moorman, from Corporation
Court OF Lynchburg. and reversed. in
which Judges Fhlegar and Buchanan rem
dcrcd dissenting opinions, involves a full
discussion of the rights OF judgment
cerdtors and Of mechanics lien.
In Armstrong Us. Henderson, from the
Corporation Court of Danviile, and al
sitaned the question of offsets is ably dis
cussed.
Coles Exor. vs. Martin from the Cir
cut Court of Tittsylvania. and reversed.
affords a practical illustration of the. dis
tiactions to be noted in The application
OF the statute of limitations.
There were opinions in several other
CASES OF interest, which are reviewed be-
low:
Assessment Companies.
Mutual J.cservs Fund Life Assn VS..
Tayior. From the Law and Equity
Court Of the city Of Richmond Opinion
by Judge Phiegar.
This case is on Il writ Of error 10 a
Judgment OF the Law and Equity Court or
R:Ghmond on an action OF aSsulnpSlt
brought by James VI. Taylor against the
= :lboye-uamcd company. alleging That SAID
company had forfeited the contract OF
sIgsurance with him l-ecduse ii had When
dle reached the age of sixty Years in
creased the rate of assessment applicable
10 him at The time he took out his policy.
The Court of Appeals says, in concluding
lis oni,liorr. that ITO sustain the iudS-
12lent of the Law and Equity Court we
will be compelled to say that the asaess-
1nent OF February, 1898. was either ultra
wires, unlawful, fraudulent, or unreason-
able and that the vote cast by Mr. Burn
ham president OF the company, III
meeting Tor the purpose OF changing fhe
rate Of assessment for Alr. Taylor waS
cast in bad faith.
From a careful consideration OF al the
evidence bearing upon these questions,
it was held that the judgment OF the
matters. and it was accordingly reversed
This case had attracted 4 great deal Of
etterlrion. IL VS. a test case and many
others ere affected by il
Construction OF Lease
Richmond lee Company vs.. Crystal Ice
Company From the Circuit Court CT
Richmond Opinion by Judge Harrison.
This action of debt was brought 10 re-
cover $1,000 rent alleged to be due under
"a demise for a term of years. The de-
PENDANT pleaded nil debit and offered
special plea setting up that because Of the
partial destruction of the buildings by IN
lee. gorge their value was not as much
as it was at time Of lease. and therefore
the defendant is not bound sc. The ac-
ton of the court in rejecting this plea
was the first assignment of error The
Supreme Court sustains the rejection of
The plea because it fails to specify The eX-
tent TO which the leased premises have
been impaired and because it fails to al
7e1c the amount 10 which the defendant
is entitled by reason of the matters con-
eained in tfIe plea.
The second error assigned is the action
of the court in rejecting certain evidence
which the defendant sought to Introduce
relating to the destruction Of the build
inss by the ice gorge. SC.
1t is contcuded that this bill of cXcep-
contents. cxCeut to say that the plaintiff
had introduced the contract of lease
dated June s. 1875. and that unless il IS
made TO appear from the bill of CECcp-
lions that. under the terms OF tile lease,
the defendant was relieved from the pay
Jment OF rent il the buildings were de-
stroycd. such evidence was improper. and
fl was further contcnGed that because
this bin of exceptions does not refer 10
ii il,.l SaS
fled, the latter cannot be looked to for
the purpose Of ascertaining the terms OF
the lease.
Both these contentious We're orerrulei
by the Supreme Court. and after the con-
sidcration OF the merits OF the case the
lease was construed as follows: Taking
the paper as a whole. ii seems clear that
the intention of the parties was that the
repairs to he made hy the lessee during
The lease we're only the ordinary repairs
Indicated by The particular description
used, such as broken glass. bursting
water pipes. &c. 1t follows from what
has been said that the liability of The
lessee TO pay The rent provided for in the
contract is prescribed and limited by the
terms of section 1855. Code, which must
he given its full force and effect III de-
ternining the rights of the parties. II
was. therefore. error in the court TO ex-
clude The evidence Offered by the a
PENDANT 10 prove the destruction. either
partial or entire. Of the buildings
Judgment reversed and new trial
awarded
Qucs, inn of Offsets
P 3, Armstrong & Co rs. James a. Her.
dersoH e Co. From the Corporation
Court of Danyille. Opinion by Judge
PheEar.
In 1899 the plantinS, living in New
York, and TIE defendants, living in Dan
willie llderTook. as promoters. TO form,
a combine or trust, of the tobacco ware
houses at Danville- They agreed to share
interests and expenses. one OF the
things which they deemed necessary was
the retirement OF a note executed by
Lea, Watkins & Co.. for S5.0Gh, which WAS
10 fall due July ]. 1899. This was done by
j. \. Henderson and Acree. who sub
stituted their own note therefor, which
they paid thirty days later. one-haf by