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

law to every gift causa mortis. and that
1t does not take effect absolutely and
irrevocably until the death OF the donor
AS to Cowherds trusteeship the court
says: There being no countervailing cir
cumstances, one who thus receives prop
erty for another must be held to be the
trustee OF the intended donee and not
merely the agent of the donor.
AS to gifts causa mortis the court
sdigresses to say:.i}.Nor are we prepared
to dispute the wisdom of Lord Eldon's
observation that 1t would be quite as well
If this donation causa mortis were strick-
en- out Of our law altogether So long,
however, as the law remains unchanged
by competent authority, Embedded rs 1t
is in our Jurisprudence and sanctioned by
the experience of centuries. the courts
must give 1t effect in cases like this
where the evidence is clear and convinc-
ing.
'The decree Of the Circuit Court of
Goochland Is therefore reversed and the
cause remainded for further proceedings
not In conflict with the views expressed
in this case"
BisseIl VS.. Thomas.
In the case OF Blssell VS.. Thomas, the
opinion of the court Is written by Judge
Harrison, and sustains the Law and
Equity Court of the city Of Richmond.
Bissell and Hood made contract for the
conduct of the nursery business, ono OF
the clauses of which stipulated that II
at the end OF the year and the payment
of all expenses, salaries being charged
thereto a profit was shown the agree
ment should be renewed for another
year. The question involved is as to
whether the report of the commissioner
In the case showed n profit Both re-
ports made by him did not show such
= 81, 1,n hat Inc o.t-
nership Of agreement had terminated un-5
der the condition agreed upon. The trial
court refused to pass upon the method
of accounting adopted by the commits
sioner In reaching his conclusion, but
takes the ground that the conclusion OF
the commissioner was correct. and with
out formally passing upon the exceptions
approves and confirms the conclusion.
The higher court holds that while the
lower court did not In words override
the exceptions. 1t In effect did so. Un-
less. however. the court ought to have
sustained the exceptions and thus made
a decree in favor OF the plaintiff neces
sary. its failure to. formally override
them Is harmless error After careful re-
view OF the entire record the appellate
court is sustained that the appellant has
not been prejudiced by the decree COM
planned Of he having been given the ben
eft of every doubt.
Other Gases.
In the case OF the City OF Norfolk VS.,
Flynn tho Judgment OF the Circuit Court
Of the city of Norfolk is reversed, Judge
Keith delivering the opinion OF the court,
Flynn was fined by the police Justice for
violation OF an ordinance regulating the
sale OF milk. The Circuit Court, on APP
peal, reversed the Justice, and the Court
OF Appeals now sustains the justice and
reverses the Circuit Court, The defend
ant objected to the ruling OF the Justice,
contendng that the ordinance was in
valid This objection is not sustained,
In the case OF Martins Administrator
vs. the Richmond, Fredericksburg and
Potomac Railroad Company, the opinion
OF the court, written by Judge Buchanan.
slstains the Judgment of the Circuit
Court of Stafford county. In Its conclu-
sion the court says: The evidence of the
defendant, If true, and that was n ques-
tlon for the Jury Cor the court In this
easel, was clearly sufficient to show that
the defendant company was not guilty
OF any negligence In the management OF
Its train. of II negligent to show that the
plaintiffs intestate was guilty OF contrib
utory negligence, The Judgment OF the
Circuit Court is therefore affirmed,