Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-12-05
Z
DELAY IS NO |. BARRIER I|||:
SHENANDOAH NATIONAL BANK
WINS IN SUPREME COURT.
CASE COMMENCED IN 1881.
pecrec of Circuit Court of Fredcr-
sc,s acknowledgements Ice Com
pnny secures Partial rictory-Cor-
poration Court of Lynchburs Re-
ver.cd; Also, Circuit Court of AM
herst.
CASE COMMENCED IN 1881.
pecrec of Circuit Court of Fredcr-

In the case of Tidball and others VS.. |
the Shenandoah National Bank and 9TH
crs in the Supreme Court yesterday, the
opinion of the court is delivered by Judge
Buchanan In n learned opinion, reviewing
a case which WAS before the Supreme |
Court Of Appeals for the second time
The court holds that there was no error
in the decree of the Circuit Court OF
Frederick and that II should be affirmed
Upon the original appeal the court hcid
that the case was dcmurrabie on Two
grounds: (iD That it did not ailege that
the endorser, whose estate was sought 10 /
he held liable for two negotiable notes
sued on. had notice OF their dishonor,
and CO. because IL failed to make the
original debtors, the makers of the notes, |
parties to the suit.
II further held that the decree OF the |
Circuit Court construed by this court |
and the decree Of May. 1897. ought not TO
be interfered with: that the decree Of
the March term. 1900. should be set
aside, the cause remanded; that after
the bill has been amended each party \
should be allowed 70 Illc exceptions 10
the report of the commissioner. and to
take further evidence. II desired. but de-
.lined 10 express any opinion on the
defence of laches then and now relied or
ny appellant.
When the case went back to the Circuit
Court an amended and supplemental bill
WAS filed, in which il was alleged that
due notice had been given the executor
IF the endorser OF the dishonor and pro-
test OF the negotiable notes sued on, and
the notaries' certificates thereof were fllec
and made a part Of the amended and sup
elemental bill. To this amended and sup
elemental bill the ma.tcrS of two OF the
notes were made parties defendant Inc
maker OF the other note had fully paid Oil
md discharged it.
>s..,,I saf@ -
amended and supplemental bill came too
tate and that il set up and seeks &c
enforce an entirely new cause of action
They demurrcd to the bill on six different
grounds pleaded The statutes of llmita-
tons. and flied an answer in which the
defence Of laches was set up
ITIon a hearing Of the cause the Cir
cult Court rendered decree in favor of
The complainant for the balance founc
due by the commissioner report From
tlat decree this appeal is taken
The appellate court held that it was
a proper case for an amended bill, as to
the correctness of which conclusion there
is no doubt.
FoI.MER DECISION HOLDS.
The court adds: "15ut if We We're salts
fled now that it was erroneous we have
no power 10 correct Il. The decision OF
this court upon the former appeal is as
conclusive upon us as it was upon the
Circuit Court. it is the law of this case
The court also rules against the APP
pellant's contention of error the part
of the Circuit Court in allowing the
amended bill 10 be filed upon the ground
that 1t made new case. Inc court says
it is the settled practice in this State
that such amendments can be made. ane
4. would be rcproacn 10 the admins
tration of justice if t-lCv could not. Tie
amendments made were authorized by
ti-ie 10
Tie court rules against the appellants
on their contention that the action OF
the Circuit Cour. i'll overrulinS the dc
nulrer TO the amended bill was All error.
Finally the court holds that the appel
lee bank was not guilty of sucn lacheS
in the prosecution OF its rights That i,
should lie denied relief. The laches COM
planned Of the court holds. occurred NOT
In the hrining of this suit. but in the
prosecution after il was brought II
the appellee bank has been guilty OF
laches il has been in the prosecution OF
lis smit after il brought.
DELAY NO BAR.
TIN, court then reviews the testimony
L. the case at some length to show that
the contention of lacnes is not well
founded 1t continues: That there has
beer delay in the prosecution OF the appel
lees suit there can he no question. But
delay alone in the prosecution % his suit
docs not prevent Il party from Recovery,
Length of time alone is not a test c.
sralcncss of demand, and mere lapse OF
time. unaccomparicd by some ci,cum
stance affcrdinc evidence Of presunp-
4ion that the right has been abandoned.
IS not iac!ics. A cour, of equity vii. noe
refuse relief merely because there has
beer delay il asserting a claim.
The court further holds that there was
no abandonment of its claim by the
bank: that there is no uncertainty about
the amount OF the banks demands nor
TIE credits to which it is subject. and
that the transaction has not become OH
scWe by the lapse OF time or loss of ev-
idcnce. These rulings are sustained by
frequent quotations from the evidence III
the cause. Finally. the court fails to sus-
tain the claim OF the appellants that the
Circuit Court erred in allowing interest
on the principal sum decreed the bank
since the order of reference at the No
ve,nber term 1852. The court holds that
in contracts like those sued on the in