The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-02-08

American Denosit and Loan Company to
secure a debt Of S1,12S.Go, which ne owned
ii and the bunk agreed to pay the debt
and Discharge him from his Indebtedness
10 the company The bank pa!d Inc oeoe
CT Terry 10 the Deposit Company a'iu
obtained possession of the poilc!es. !.
oaid the premiums on the policies until
.rerry's death in 1898, when 1t coliecteo
the policies IN full and appropriated the
proceeds TO its own Use and refused 10
account to Terry's estate for any part
thereof Thereupon this suit was DrousHt
hy his personal representative TO recover
me sum collected less the premiums upon
the ground that assignments We're lIesal
and should be declared void in toto
The assignment was held to have peeh
valid BIZ the Court Of Appeals, and sltes
n consideration OF the evidence as 10
what indebtedness was covered hE me 90
signme!lt, the court concludes nE lioiuiiis
That the appellee should be charged with
Tho sim of sl0.Oe9, the proceeds OF the
,o)icies as of January IL. 1899, the date the
eame were paid TO it, and that 1t should
no credited with Terry's note to II lor
s. f.yD. dated May 2S. 1896, with legal inter
est thereon from the time 1t became uue
and pavable until January 10, le9'' WIN
the sum of &1.12S.6o. the amount pald by
the appellant to the Deposit Company, WIN
,e,.,l interest thereon from day OF pay
rnant until january 16, 1899; with the sum
of SLABS. 40, the aggregate amount o. '''1
premiums paid by the appellant VIII Aes"
interest on the amount OF eacll 1io-li va
~ ,,aI.ment until January IT, 1899. And
+bat tl1e residue OF the said $loro shouio
he credited on the portion Of the lnaeoleo-
,,asS of the p. L. Terry Milling Company
,or which =. i. Terry, deceased, was
Iio,5a as r11nrantor as Of the 10th OF Jam
,,ery 1899 so far as it may be necessary
"a nav the same and to the extent OIL
siIch payment the appellee should pe SUI
,.,on+ad TO all the rights ana remeoies
nsr,;rl, the appellant may have against
said p. l.. Terry Milling Company Oh rs
assets on account of that oeot, anu "a
after creditinS all these sums upon me
said $4,000, any balance thereo. s,ou 'i1
remain in the appellants hands II sllotilu
80 sar,a over TO the appellee, with
;n1erssr thereon from January IL, 1889 uil-
til paid ,-c-sa7
and the case remanded for further pro
ce2dings us herein directed
The Summary.
Persons &. Co. VS.. Newman ct ais Ar
oq,ad bv a. =. Dickinson ana j. 4. Al
de. son for appellant, and Hlll Carter LII
appellees and submitted
Hughes VS.. Williams ct ais. Argued pS
f. s. kirkpatrick for appellant ana COZ
timed until tomorrow.
The next cases to be called are:
briggs vs.. Cooke; Baker vs.. bfiSss "
co. and Baker VS.. Buckner 4 Co.-Nos.
e., G3 and "a.
Judge James Keith, p--Baer vs. IN
lam ct ais. Circuit Court Of Allegheny
county Reversed.
Judge John a. Bucllanan-first Nation-
al Bank of Roanoke vs.. Terry. Circuit
Court of Roanoke. Reversed.
Core vs. City of Norfolk. Corporation
Court of city of Norfolk. Reversed.
Judge A A. Phlcgar-Montgomery VS..
Commonwealth. Circuit Court OF ROCK
bridge county. Reversed
AIunrord vs. Van Wyck ct ais. Order
ed to he put upon the privileged docket
for the March term and argued before a
full court.
Perry Tic & Lumber Company VS. Rey-
noIds. Law and Equity Court Of city OF
Norfolk. Writ of error and supersede2s.
| Bond, SIG0.
Noting VS. National Bank OF Virginia.
Petition to rehear. Petition refused.
Maslin vs. Parson. Petition to rehear.
Petition refused.