The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-09

be be- invested as the court might think best
TO yield an income for the owners; Ter
the case to sod
under decree In the cause the sales
confirmed; purchase money pail, INTO into
court and deeds e. u 1nd
and confirmed In February, = 800.
The suit remained. on the docket until
AuEust lssi Wish tim So ~ 7, se
the trustee and William II. Rhea,. ST..
the life tenant and = deiemdan mt - =, t the
ea,seh p''' whie aa they gym aese That Lie
deferred payment of the purchase money
for n farm in NORTHAMPTON county, which !.
was threatening. to sell the property for
the UNPAID purchase money. and PRAYING
&c i1 commissioner 10 borrow a sufficient
sum to discharge that Indebtedness and
secure tho loan upon gone, portion OF no
tr9stee Sy the viii The mai
united in ts PRAYER The loan. b weyer,
the written request of all parties In In
&tercst. the court decreed the sale of the
lot In Cumberland Street.
Property Is Sold.
K This property was subsequently sold,
the sae confirmed and the pr9pert
Rhea. and ". W. Sale, temporary re-
ceiver, presented another petition q TIC
Mde ,9e stnXso u Mon rat
to satisfyn deed OF trust thereon for 81. 900. NJ
y After tho usual procedure III such gases
4 for $500 and the sale confirmed. Prac-
1855 with respect 10 "a loi In Cumberland
for one Of the appellces at s2,6l5.
Appellants contend that It was not per- i
msslble under section 2e1s OF the Code, B
tho suit Of a trustee q q lie estate IN
land. to sell not only tho life estate. but i
also the remainder limited on that estate.
@the DEGREES were therefore utilities and
THE proceedings under them passed no 2
lndeivcring Its opinion the court says:
Whatever NAV be said OF appellants
contention as an original propositions,
these decisions Dust Quoted it in The opln-
K tion. and titles to propery throughout
and rights become vested on the faith
OF It, and Il departure from hat construc-ii
Etlon at this tmtGwOuld be disastrous ana
5indcfensible, even If the court, as MT pres
emf constituted, were OF Il contrary opln-a
ut follows from what has been said
that the Corporation Court and, the Court
of Law and Ghancery q Norfolk acquired ed
subject matter or the .liugation, and
where that is the case although the de-
may pc
aside. 1t also follows that the titles OF
tappelees, who are bona tide purchasers 4
for value and without, notice 70 the lots
first Sold are valid and must bcEupheld. ~
Summary.
by Judge John A.. buchanan Burwel!
vs. snrwel st ais cir rs court Of OF
BY Judge ,;eorge N. Harrison: Rocky +
p p9an Loan hna r coar o
county. Affirmed nlpart and reversed In
i ~, Judge stafford g, Whlttle: .Rhea vs.,
Gerry OF city OF Norfolk, Affirmed.
Petitions for Appeals, Etc,
Puekettlvs. Mullins ndministrator. CIR.
error error and !, supersed,caa. Bond, $500,
court 81 y stg q wit i
error and supersedeas Bond, $50,
5srn's9n vs. comogeath
error aud supcrscdeas. Bond, $40,
pleasnnton W. Virginia Fire and Ma
r!no Insurance ~ cl.nee !, Company ct a.. Circuit
Weaver ,', et AIS; vs.. Smith ct ais, Circuit
cGnnl q aasso G9anty MpPe refused
Faa,u !tllt county. Appeal refused,
ttSW,HtloHu osuoo| ,DlstFlcl. EC!rcult COuEl
Barbour and Company vs.. Raleigh Coal
and Coke Company. Circuit GaIlrt' Of city
Virginia and so,lthwSestern hallway
Company VS.. Bailey. Corporation Court
q. CITY Of l3rlstol, Rehearing refused.
II Alexander, &C., VS., l1mbrey, Judge, Corr
poratlon Court OF Fredericksburg, Writ
or mandamus denied, II
Hill rs. Haney, Upon a petition for q +
ssatt sat a3s4f Tococs IJ oorJ sfp sts
Norfolk Railway and Light Company
Richard 3, Tunstall for plaintiff in error
and pallel- Coleman, IN, and u T. Lewis q
folnv,d Nc l "a error and submitted.
ern Assurance Company, Argued by MI
liam lllyson and a. I; Holiday for ap-
Pellee and James I, Shelton for appel
lants, ana submitted s,
The court adjourned until January Sd,
that being the nrst day Of the January