The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-06-14
Parson VS.. Maury g. Maury.


The case Of Parsons VS.. Maury and
Maury, decided by the Supreme Court Of
Appeals OF Virginia at Wytheville on
Thursday. in an opinion delivered by
Judge Keith. president of the court, Ia
ono growing out Of the long and tedious
coupon legislation OF the state, extending
from the early seventies down to 1881.
In this case the verdict of the Circuit
Court of the city Of Richmond Is affirmed.
a large block of coupon bonds OF 1871
were held by Edward Parsons deceased,
under whom the plaintiff in error Is as
siEnee. Maury and Maury were employed
by the plaintiff in error to force the
State OF Virginia to accept these coupons
In payment OF taxes.In February. 1895,
Maury and Maury had In possession $59.-
6D of coupons, s45 900 Of which had been
rendered in payment OF taxes. With re-
spect to these. there was no controversy
They also had bonds of Parsons upon
which there were matnred coupons
amounting to s6o,642. These had not been
detached. The attorneys We're given
power under their contract TO detach
coupons as they natured and take steps
to realize on. them BY rendering them in
payment or taxes. The bonds with these
coupons attached We're returned 10 the
administrator of Edwin Parsons. IN ac-
cordance with their demands, the Maurys
rescrvtng all their rights with respect
to them under their contract with Par,
sons. In addition to the &s0.6s Of coupons
which had matured when delivered by
the Manrys, six semi-annual installments
OF three per cent. coupons accrued while
the mccullough case was pending before
the Federal Supreme Court, sum OF
sao..f2s. which added to the SGD 6i2, made
$10l,010 of coupons withdrawn from Maury
and Maury's hands.
The plaintiff in his declaration claims
that there was due March ~, 1896. the sum
of s2s30950 for coupons sold by defendants
and unaccounted for. Against this. .laury
and Maury filed an Offset in which the
amounts due on profits and compensation
in respect to s224.600 face value OF consol
bonds Of the State. issue of March. 1871
and coupons belonging to said bonds, both
Of which were placed In defendants
hands by Parsons and wrongfully with
drawn by his administrator, And for fees
compensation for valuable legal sEyices
and interest until payment $4,000.
The lower court In its decision held
that the offsets claimed by the defendants
are at least equal In amount to the claims
Of plaintiff, and the defendants waving
n claim for Judgment for any excess
OF Offsets. tho court held that the plain.
tiff was entitled to nothing. and placing
costs on defendants.
Tho plaintiff demurred to the evidence
and In this way the case came before
the Appellate Court In its decision
the higher court quotes the opinion as
to demurrers In the case of Chesapeake
and Ohio US. Johnson 9lst Virginia, P
III, which holds that the party demurring
is considered as admitting his adversarys
evidence and all just infercnccs which
can be properly drawn therefrom by
jury and as waiving all of his own evl.
dence which conflicts with that of his ad.
versary. and all differences from his own
evidence falthough not In conflict with
his adVersarys) which do not necessarily
result therefrom. Applying this rule to
the case in point, the court holds that the
judgment must be affirmed" In con-