The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-09-13
samuel wohlford. deceased. for their in.

Samuel ,Wohlford. deceased, for their In
tcrcsts In tho estate.
Subsequently other creditors OF 10
blnett's estate Instituted suits ~ equity
in the Circuit Court of Bland against his
administration and heirs for the purpose
OF subjectlng his assets to the payment OF
debts. AN accounting OF the outstanding
indebtedness OF the estate was ordered Oc-
obcr /, 1891 which suspended the ru1n.
Ming OF the statute OF limitations TO all
creditors whose dgmands were thereon.
Numerous authorities for this position nre
quoted. @
q. 1t is an agreed fact that the decree OF
December 2, 1898 wa sentered against
James Robinett after his dcn tn ana APP
pellant insists thatit was therefore void
and should have been so declared by inc
Circuit Court. The Appellate Court hoia:
that the weight OF authority holds tnant
where a court OF general jurisdict ton ren.
derg such Judgment it is not for tnat
reason void. Tho Judgment. while enron
eous, Is effective unless and until se'
a side and may not be colaterally attack
ed.
The contention OF the appellant that
the decree OF appellees II not void Wha
nevertheless barred by tho statute OF limi'
tatlons Is not sustained BY the y cour..
The court holds that voidable jud gment'
until set aside In a proper proceeding
for that purpose. possesses all the az
tributes OF valid judgment. i,
ri The other assignment OF error 20 my
action OF the Circuit Court IN re1uslns
To require Harvey p. Mustard TO Ds
made n marty defendant, 10 the litigation,
the court holds that there was no error
and that the petition was interjected lor
the gnurpose OF delay rather than for tI.o
bona fide object OF bringing necessary
party before tho court.
The DEGREES complained Of are held to
be without error and are affirmed.
Bashaw vs.. Wallace.
In the case Of Bashaw's adminissttt ra y
vs.. Wallace's administrator, etc. W the 4
opinion OF the court written BY u t1g
Keith, holds that the decree must pc re-
yersed and the cause rcmanded roy
further proceedings.
4, The en- Sc grew out Of the giving OF a
bond by Samuel D. and r. N. Wallace 70
y I3ashnw for ;1,lO0,F and the Issue IN the
case is the validity OF that bond on me
Eface 81 which certain alterations ana
changes appear. 7. :, !,
n appears that Bashaw paid as surety
for IS. D.. Wallace a Judgment OF sbse.ioo,
With interest from December lS7 ana
that the payments upon this ~ ds1nent
were completed In June. 1873. me money
inns Maid by Bashaw as surety for s.. y.
Wallace was the consideration for the
bond in controversy. Considerable pur-
ton OF the opinion is consumed IN de-
scrIbing the bond and the alterations
thereon. The court quotes the authorizes
on evidence MS to the effect OF tine
alteration OF the bond or other instrument
offered as evidence. but takes$up me me
facts In the case and from them SHOWS "
that Bashaw came to the assistance 9.
Wallace in need, and was an induieen I
creditor. Bashaw's character was me- =
and is unimpeached. When the pond
Was offered In evidence Bashaw was not
= competent witness, Wallace being DEAD.
The consideration upon which the BOND
rests arose in June, 1878 Accepting "
ms a fact that the bond was then exc
cuted as appears, twenty years. the nm y
Itation. upon sealed instruments would
have expired in June lS9s, but M y !. !.
Wallace being then dead. the rlght Oh
action was extended for one year. 80 SC.
that the statute did not attach unti'
June 23d 1907. IT, therefore.sthe or
date OF the bond was in June, 1878. the
alteration was mmnterial for this actlon
was Instituted in April. 1899, about two
months before the bar of&the statute ap-
nlIed. Considering all the evidence IN
the case, the court reaches the con-
clusion that the Circuit Court erred IN re-
jecting the bond The decree must there
fore. be reversed and the cause re-
manded.
Street vs., N. g. W. Road,
In the cause OF Streets executrix vs..
norfolk and Western Railway Company,
from the Court Of Law and Chancery
OF the city OF Norfolk, the opinion OF the
court is written by Judge Cardwel. and
the judgment Of the Law and Chancery
Court Is affirmed. if
The cause grew out OF an action to re-
cover damages for the death OF William
Street, son OF plaintiff in error, alleged
Is have been accustomed blythe negligence
of defendant In error, The defendant
pleaded not guilty. and after testimony
closed. demurred to the evidence. There
upon tho jury gave a verdlctfor the plain