The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-01-15

the mere fact that tnc lcEt s n1sSs 'tt,l,Ss
buchanan, the NTH member OF tue benS,,p
not sitting when the appeal VS. s,f nearu 1
is a r rsa' Tho II ow W courts f' and refuse the
writ OF error asked. The opinion VIII
have Il far-renching and ii,pG7rant efi e.
sunincy liquor selling. While The, decision
would would have carried more weight had even e.
bare majority of the court rena aefont IL, IT.
Establishing Il precedent In all such cases..
Two Of the Judges Dissented.
III the casc OF 1'on,p.sins. receiver, vs.,
Deyerle from the Circuit Court Of Mont.
soery county the opinion i, Of the ,a eou u,,l
corcurred in by Judges Keith and Whit
tie, reverscs the decree of the lover
court and reTnands tho. cAusc for further
y, eedings not in conflict with this opln.
Judge Cardwell, In which judge Harrison
ccEours.
The issue involved IN the case Is whet,h.
er or not the acts OF reGeiver' wno ia' ra
valid George G. Junkin, both com,
missioner and receiver sold certain land
for the reason that the purchasers at the
original sale had not met the deferred
payments Junk!n. ms commissioner sold
the property and subsequently COLLECTED
the purchase money, and had ,faiied %
account TO the parties entitled thereto
70! n large part of the purchase money .,s.
Various proceedings were had, but the
cour. held that the payments made to
Junkin by Deycrle and Norcross, The pur-
OF the prSperyI We're Ern vad pf az
land so purchased from further LIABILITY
to the extent Of such payments From
tina decree. upon the petition Of the
receiver. Tompkins, the case came to the
appellate court The errors ASSIGNED
raise the same question, the propriety
OF tho courts action in holding that tho
payments to Junkin by Deycrle and Nor
further stated, was surety upon the bond
o. the original purchaser. who had de-
faulted in the payments, i ne whole ques-
ton involved hinges upon me authority
UPON the purchase money. The appellate
court denies that he had such authority.
because he had not given the bond re-
CURED by the statute.
Judge Buchanan. in reversing the decree
appealed from. says: "But whether ne
tDcycrle) had notice or not neither he
nor his co-purchascr, Norcross was JUS
led in PAVING their purchase cha mq 3hey
entitled to credit therefor on the pur-
chase price of their land further than the
morey SO paid was properly accounted
for by him"
Judge Cardwell has written an opinion
dissenting from the conclusions of the ma
Jorty in which he holds that the. con-
str, ction put upon the statute applicable
in the case is TO make That statute nusa-
Traction Company Loses.
In the case Of the Richmond Traction
Company VS.. williams, from the Law
and Equity Court Of Richmond, Judge
cardwell delivers the opinion Of the
lower court. Mrs. S. N. Williams. ap-
peee sued td the s9 TOR damaF res
upon the grounds ID that the, court below
misdirected the Jury rs to the law; g.,
law and the evidences. The court over
rules both these contentlons and affirms
the judgment of the lower court.
A Partnership Dispute, 4
In the case of Slaughter vs.. Danncr. 4
city Of Richmond Judge Harrison, deIiy..
ering the opinion OF the court holds that
there Is no error IN the decree appeai;e e
wolves the settlement Of a par,ncrshlp
between J. l.. Slaughter and f. W. Dam
ner. formed in APRIL, 1871. 70 conduct bus.
lime. plaster and cement In the county
of Augusta. TIE appellant claims that
he put into the business 500, and that
he is entitled to recover. that sum from
his copartner, the firm having be n dis
solved by mutual consent in January,
1885,. Tho appellee claims that there We're
no assets. and that the flrm was Indebted
to him for a sum twice that claimed ny
appellant on account of debts, for which
he assumed personal rcspoHSib " The
court in its opinion states that, 1t Is I'M
possible 10 say that he ap ellet Is in
Gcbted 10 the appellant. The burden was
nnon rhe appellant to show h right. 70
wholly failed 10 do 50. and there DE no
other result than that reached b the
lower court. in d!smissing his bill. The
The Chancery Court Reversed.
another local case decided Is, that of
6r "a n 20 nf TliCOrnGNI Ng
Powfatar Clay Manufacturing Company.
appealed from the. Chancery Court of the
dent of the court. writes the oriAioa,
which holds that the demurrer to the
b!ll should have been sustained, This
the soatera Railway ID depot in this city.
brick for which was turn shed by the
appellee. The Clay company, iiled Its
count OF material Turn shed, etc ard
claimed lien under thu Code against the
property. The Savings Bank, one OF the
DEFENDANTS. demurrcd 10 the bill Hie-
cause it did not SHOW when the amount
covered by plaintiffs lien became due and
payable, nor aliege that the suit had heenl
within the six months period prescribed
by statute for fling same the decree
of the Chanccry Court does not In terms
pass upon the demurrer, and In suon !;
Judge. Keith holds that the demurrer
should have been sustained and reverses
the lower court.
oll1nrnary.
BY Judge James Keith. president
Fidelity and Deposit Company VS.. Beale,
judge Circuit Court Of Westmoreland
Wicks VS., Soul. Corporation Court of
city Of Newport News. Affirmed,
| Savings Bank of Richmond rs. Powha-
| tan Clay Manufacturing Company. Chan
| Gerry Court of city of Richmond Re-
| VeTscd.
BY Judge r. II. Cardwel--
| Richmond Traction Company vs. VIII
liams Law and Equity Court Of city OF
| Richmond. Affirmed.
! Carson Lime Company VS.. Ruthcrford's
! administrator Circuit Court Of War
| ren county. Reversed,
| Annie NJ Smith VS.. A. Moore. Jr., trus-
| Affirmed.
BY Judge John A. Buchanan
Fulkerson VS., Taylor. Circuit Court OF
] Lee county. Reversed in part
Dooley and Eayliss vs., city of Bristol.
| Corporation Cour, OF city Of Bristol Re-
| versed
House vs. House. Circuit Court Of RUS
| sell county Reversed.
Tompkinss, receiver. VS., Dycrlc. Circuit
| Court Of Montgomery county. Reversed,
| Cardwell and HARRISON j. j., dissenting,
N1E l 10 -