Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-05
In COURT OF APPEALS
TEN OPINIONS HANDED DOWN
YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
Affirmation Of Judgment in Seven
Cases, Reversal in Three
Basis of Decisions.

The Court of Appeals late yesterday af-
ternoon handed down ten opinions, seven OF
which affirmed decisions of the court below
and three reversed the lower court.
In the case of the American Security and
Trust Company and Norman Gait and
Sterling Gait, executors of the estate of
Charles e. Gait, against the firm Of r. w.
Walker & Son, the court, in affirming the
decision below, held that the exc cutors were
bound to pay rent under the terms of
lease which had been accepted by their
testator even though formal paper had
not been executed by him.
The plaintiff below, real estate firm,
sued for balance due on the rent of dwell
ing leased by Mr.. Calf for one year from
September H. 1900, although the plaintiff
died September 4, 1850, without having ex-
ecuted lease. but having agreed to lease
the premises for one upon certain condi-
ton which the agents accepted
The case of the American Bonolng ana
Trust Company against Kate L. Paynter
was also affirmed by the Appellate Court.
The action was on an administrators pono,
and was taken from the jury by the lower
court and this action is affirmed by the
opinion.
in the lower court in the case of Sarah
Chunn against the City and Suburban RaI,
way Company Of Washington was afhrmeo
by the Court of Appeals in an opinion by
Justice Shepard, directing that the verdict
in favor of the railroad company should
stand
The right of way of the Potomac and
Chesapeake Beach Railway Company, as
successor of the old Southern Maryland
railroad to section OF about TWO miies
of roadway occupied by the Chesapeake
Beach railway was declared gooo by the
Court of Appeals.
The case involved the right to the pos
session of a right of way about two miles
in length, extending from Burrvlile, IN the
District of Columbia, to Chesapeake juno
tion near the District line, which had
been used for many years by the Chesa-
peake Beach Railway Company In en-
tering the District of Columbia. Inc
Washington Potomac and Chesapeake
Railroad Company claimed title to 1t as
the successor of the old Southern Mary
land Railroad Company, which was Or
ganized under the laws OF Maryland III
1868 to build road from Point Lookup,
in the Chesapeake bay, to Washington, y.
c., and was empowered by Congress IN
1882 to enter the District of Columbia the
came financially involved after grading and
partially laying out it's right of way, and
all of its franchises and property were SOLD
as the result of foreclosure proceedings
Suit Of Ejectment.
The Washington, Potomac and Chesa-
peake Railroad Company was organized
under the laws of Maryland for the pur-
pose Of acquiring the property and rights
of the old Southern Maryland Company.
In January, 1902, 1t instituted an action OF
ejectment in the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict against the Chesapeake Beach Kali
way Company to recover the possession OF
the right of way in the District of Column
bia, which that company had been using.
The case was tried IL November last be-
fore Mr. Justice Barnard and jury upon
the testimony Of the plaintiffs witnesses
md il,Iy
the plaintiff for he possession of the right
OF way. From this Judgment the defenoant
appealed to the Court of Appeals AS the
case is one of considerable Importance, 1t
will probably be taken on appeal TO the Su-
preme Court of :he United States.
Other opinions handed down were the re-
versal of the court below In the case OF
Watson F. Clark, administrator against
the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Insurance
Company, and the reversal of the case OF
Maria Long against Elsie A. Scott ana
Others in the latter of which the court or
dered that a decree be entered establishing
an equitable lien on the property in con-
troversy for $500
The cases of Green against Stewart and
Herberger against Worthington were also
affirmed by the appellate court.
In the case of Mrs. Rowena Thompson
Dietrich against the District of Columbia,
the court affirmed the judgment of the Dis
suit against the District to recover s1O.-
600 as damages for injuries sustained
August g 1902, by stepping into an UNI
guarded hole or depression in the sidewalk
at the intersection of 4th and X streets
northwest.
The trial of the case resulted in ver-
dict in Mrs. Dietrich's favor for $500. The
Supreme Court of the District entered judg- |
ment on this verdict, and the District APP
pealed to the Court of Appeals. The opin-
ion of the Court of Appeals. which was
written by Mr.. Justice Shepard, sustains
the action of the lower court.
Additional Attorneys Fee.
The judgment of the District Supreme
Court awarding 81, 500 as an additional at
torney's fee to Augustus s. Worthington,
r. Ross Perry and Francis P. B. Sands in
the contested will case involving the settle |
ment of the estate of John w. Marin was
also affirmed by the Court of Appeals yes
terday.
The attorneys entered suit in the court
below against Franz ]. and Mary w. Hell
berger for a balance of 81 500 claimed to
be due under contract for contingent
fee in securing the share of Mrs. Heiberger
in the estate Of her father, John w. Marin.
The defendants claimed that the compro-
mise of the estate which was effected did