The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-01-15
P. st. George Barraud and BROTH
ers Have ali Interest III
the Bartons Farm.
OTHER INTERESTING CAUSES
Supreme Court Decides Against
Lewis Fight to Keep Rcsta''-
rant Opcn-Ricl,mond Cases.

r,nia. with a full bench present. ses.ei
dor handed down OPINIONS In sixteen
cases, and decidei thirteen appeals to'
wrlts Of error and supcrsedeas. Among
the cases decided aie lnany of great loca.
interect
None of the cases decided is OF more
q interest to Richnitnd md Virginia read
ers generally than that Of Turner. e'c''
*. Barraud. from the Circuit Court OF
4 norfolk county, ii. &hichsJudEc Harrison
h hands down the opinion Of the court AZ
7 f,rrning the decree OF the trial court
rhis case is Of peculiar interest at TINS
time by reason vi the fact that r. St.
George Barraud, son OF the delehoah.
in the case and the great grahoson u
the original owner OF the properly ~
j volved known as the barrohs lam 10,
Gently disappeared froE, this city, Win
n serious charge dcveicping against him
4 Immediately after his d'sappearanoe. ne
3& decision of the case. which Is IN favor Oh
" 1to appcllees, gives title TO certain
valuable property IN Norfolk county 70
the Barraud childlcn, OF whom +. 81.
y George ,Barraud Is one III this connec-
ton, It may be internolated that GER
tain creditors Of r. St. George barrauu
Z pre Interested IN the iand. tne titS "
which Is involved.
d. c. Barraud, ST., OF Norfolk, died In
1897 leaving q will bcqueathing to his
II grandson. D. c. Barraud, 1r., life es-
tate In the Barrons farm, IN Norlolk
&c unity. with remainder to his lawful
issue, il he should die leaving any such.
4 and If he should Die without lawful
issue, then such remainder to pass, uhaer
I the resduary clause Vi the VIII, 10 tne
I . . g.,. 4 .aS = tiny IN
rpeci1ic bequest, the ttstator gave 70
this grandson an undivided interest in
the estate. passing urder the residuary
clause Of the Will.
81 u. c. Barraud Jr., rapidly exhausted
X his interests under tho win anu soon
had those interests, which were chiefly
in lands, including the life estate III the
I F;arrons farm, heavily encountered by
dteds of trust and judgments taken
against him. In 1871 D, c. Barraud, Jr,
6nnd others united IL chancery suit
us plaintiffs against II. c. Marshall and
others, to subject his interests in his
E.andfather's estate to the satisfaction
cf his debts. In May, 1915, a decree
n was entered in this chancery cause direct
4 irg sale Of the entire Zee in the Earrons
farm remainder as Well as life estatel.
IN November, 1878, cnsent decree was
entered, confirming q TIlvate sale OF TINS
farm to w. Fl. Turner for $500 consid-
grafton. This decree ascertalned the re-
nainder interest in the proceeds of
{ sail TO be $il50.1G. and directed that
the same be deposited in bank TO await
y the death of the life tenant. Three days
later final decree was entered. con-
Il tir1nfng an account OF the disbursements
a,-tJ striking the causa OF BarTaud vs..
Marshall, etc. from tile docket, Turner,
tht purchaser Of the land, died in 1883,
tN
,th1, by MS son, Henry l.. Turner, and
oihers, against p 81, George Barraud
and fou- brorhers ard sisters. children
" .. c. BerraUd. IL. seeking a de
nee quietirg thel- ulse 10 portion
- the BarroHs farm. Claimed By them
r..der tbs VIII IF heir ancestor.
This Is the case presented TO the APP
peliate Court TIE question on which the
decision hinges Is as to whether z. 81
George Barraud and his brothers and
sisters were made parties defendant 10
The suit III which they had an interest
under the will. 1t appears from the re-
cord in tne case that p. st. George Bar
raud. the only one OF the five children
in esse when 'Hhe suit Of Barraud VS..
Marshall. etu.. Vas instituted, was ever
in any way known to the law made
party to the suit and that no one Of the
five children was ever before the court
In that case and could not, therefore, be
bound by the DEGREES therein. II is es-
! tablished by the record in the case that
y no guardian ad litcm was appointed for
p. st, Georc Barraud, then an infan:
Of five years. Subsequently he and his
brothers and sisters made a collateral at
tack upon the DEGREES In the suit Of Bar
y raud VS.. Marshall. The question to be de-
termined. says Judge Harrison In his
,ETl 4
Barraud VS.. Marshall, obtain jurisdiction
over teh appellees or any of them
i. by the appointment of guardian
I'D Item? This question is answered In
the negative and strongly sustained.
Furthermore. 1t is shown that the inter
ests of those whom a guardian nd
Item was appointed were antagonistc
10 those OF tho l3arraud children. The
opinion of the court in brief Is that r. 81
George Baraud, and then unborn
brothers and sisters were not made par.
ties to the suit; that not one OF the np.
pellees has ever had opportunity to be
heard In the case. that the action Of tn.
court in selling the remainder interest
of the appellees in the Barrous farm was
beyond the scope of the pleadngs, and
hence in excess of It's jurisdiction; and
therefore, that the DEGREES and other pro
GSC1iHgo III iSnlIuuu vs. HlhislIdlii 30 AL
as they affect The rights of the ap'
pellees in ana to the land in controversy
are null and void, The decree Of The
Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
The Court Evenly Divided.
Perhaps no other is more interesting
to the bar and the laity alike than ,h'
action of the court in affirming the judg
Lewis rs, the Commonwealth from tn,
I city Of Norfolk, for tho writ Of error 4
refused by the court IN Il frr's on or
which the bench Is evenly q vi1ed Ii
this case Lewis, the pleintif in error. i
the proprietor OF q saloon and reStaurar
In the city of Norfolk The restaurant DO
Ing in The same building and entered b,
the same door as the bar. Lew close
his bar to The extent OF conceaing
=--- ------=--- -
11Lhn4. XxIo