The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-12-05
new trial N |C
CONTRACT CASE
Judgment Of Law and Equity
Court 0yerfuIed The
Supreme Court.

A. number Of opinions were handed
down in the Supreme Court yesterday.
but only. two OF them contained any,.
thing OF general interest
The only case OF interest locally was
that Of the Consumers Ice Company
against r. T. Jennings, coming from
the Law and Equity Court The suit
in the first place was brought by Jen-
nings for breach OF contract on the part
OF the ice company, which agreed To-
furnish Jennings what ice he needed at
s. top IN quantities OF one ton OF
more for one year from April 8, l9vo.
the ice to be sold only from nus ice COX
and not from his wagons on the street
1t seems that Jennings construed the
contract as not prohibiting him from
selling him ice to others who might
sell from their wagons. and when the
Consumers Company declined to sell
ice TO Jennings for the purpose Of SELL
ing to other dealers he entered suit IN
the Law and Equity Court and re-
ceived damages in s1.5o0
The judgment is reversed. the verdict
set aside and the case remanded for
new trial.
In the case OF Dudley ct ais. vs. Mi
OF Roa noke, comes an echo OF the land
boom days OF Salem in 1880. It seems
that O. w. Dudley, J. A Cardoch. G. w.
Bethel and Eugene Withers became the
purchasers Of eight lots at the price OF
s.. 49,. 50. one-third IN cash. the remainder
in installments OF one and two years
on notes.
The plaintiffs in error claim that when
they purchased the lots it was with the
understanding that certain improvements
We're to be made. viz. depot was to
bs built costly hotel eretced. a trolley
inc put in operation and manufactur-
,ne plants put up These things did
rot come to pass. and they demurred
agairst the payment Of the notes IN
tha -orir,on by Judge Harrison the lower
court is affirmed
The cases heard yesterday were:
Henley vs.. Cott-en Real Estate 1rst'--
anca and Loan Company. Ars'ed by n.
r. Po'ard. for annel!ant and R. NJ Ley
and O. D. Bachelor. for appeltees ana
suh--itted
Day and others VS. Robert Treas. ct
ais. Areued by Judge VIM: H. Bur,
rourhs. for appellant and continued ontl
to-day.
The following opinions were handed
down:
Judge R. H Cardwell:
Humphrey VS.. Valley Railroad Com,
pany; Circuit Court OF the county Of
Augusta a-..rulei. 1--
Anderson VS. Commonwealth: Circuit.
Court of Campbell county. Reversed
Judge John A Buchanan: &c.
Tidball vs.. Shenandoah National Bank;
-ircut Court of Frederick county. AZ
firmed.
Lisky VS.. Paul: Circuit Court Ct Rock
ingiam county. Affirmed
kinzie VS.. Rieley's executors: Circuit
Court OF Botetourt county. Affirmed.
Adams treasurer VS.. Walker & Co.:
Corrora tion Court. city OF Lynchbur5.
Reversed.
Judge George NJ. Harrison:
Dudley ct ais VS.. Minors executors:
Circuit Court OF Roanoke county. AZ
f.rmed.
Consumers Ice Company vs.. Jennings.
ETC.: Law and Equity Court. city OF
Richmond. Reversed
Judge S. G. White:
Boush VS. Fidelity and Deposit Com
pany Of Maryland: Law and Equity
Court. city Of Norfolk. Reversed.
Nicholas VS. Nicholas. Upon mo-
ton to rehear; petition refused.
Mathews VS. Glenn: upon motion to
rehear Petition refused.
Floak, administrator. Armentrout: petit
ton to rehear. Petition refused
B,,r-veII; VS. Bu,well: Circuit Court OF
Franklin county; appeal awarded Bond
500.
McHarg VS.. Hanks; Corporation Court.
civ of Bristol: writ Of error and super
sedeas Bond 5000
Richmond Passenger and Power Com
pany VS.. Gordon; writ OF error and sup
ersedeas Bond 5000
Richmond Fredericksburg and Poto-
mac Railroad Company VS.. Martins ad-
ministrator; Circuit Cou-: OF Stafford
county. Writ OF error and supersedeas.
Bond 5000.
Brizge and Iron Company vs.. Booth:
Circuit Court Of Roanoke city. Writ OF
error refused.
Davis Tvs: Commonwealth; Corporation
Court. city of Manchester. writ OF err
ror refused.
The next cases to be heard are Ches-
terman, trustee, VS. Boiling; Reid ct ais
VS.. Garnett-
rH,-D-~r0pc AyA NED