The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-09
OPINIONS FROM
SUPREME COURT
Three Important Cases Settled.
for All Time-Otl1er Mat
tiers Disposed Of.
FRANKLIN COURT REVERSED
Judges Bucl,a,na1, and Harrison.
Deal, Respectively, With Bur-
we'll and Bond Cases.

Il
we'll and Bond Cases.
The Supreme Court Of Appeals yes.
terday handed down opinions in three im-i
portnnt cases., passed upon number OF
petitions for appeals, etc, heard nrgu.
until after the Christmas holidays, or
until January Sd, the first day Of new
torn.
An application for a writ of prohibition
was denied in tho, cnse of Hill VS.. Haney,
from Alexandria county, Involving tho
important question Of, Jurisdiction Of JUS
tees and other county officers within one
court iii. refusing the writ, did not state
hts reasons. 1t Is not stated that tho
county has exclusive Jurisdiction within
| such sphere, nor that city and county
have concurrent jurisdiction, tho action
OF tho court merely deciding that the
county did have Jurisdiction within such
one mile limit OF cities. This. however,
Is sufficient to settle tho question to the
extent OF giving county officers jurisdlc-
ton within such territory.
BurWell VS.. BurWcll.
Judge John A.. Buchanan wrote tho
opinion OF the court IN the case OF Bur-
well VS.. Burwell ct ais, from the Circuit
Court OF Franklin county, reversing the
decree of the lower! court, and remund-
ing the cause for further proceedings
In this case, the appellant instituted
a creditors suit against his mothers
estate to recover on q bond for $4,000,
| given for services rendered his mother
undeA. q contract between the appellant
and his mother for the management Of
her farm and business for seven years.
| THAT agreement was terminated in 1876,
and the appellant afterwards and until
his mothers death, In 1897, remained with
her under an arrangement between thetn.
| by which he was to- cultivate her lands
and both to share III tho crops
The defense relied upon to defeat ap-l
| pellants recovery on the bond4,is that
no did not keep his agreement with his
mother, and was, there fore. not entitled
to the compensation for which the bond
was glvon, and that he procured the ex-
ecution of tho bond by false representa-s
tons to and improper or undue influence
over her. Upon n hearing OF the cause
the Circuit Court disallowcd the claim.
and from this decree the appeal was al
lowed. s En- ~
| The appellate court holds that the trans
| actions between persons occupying certain
|sconfdental relations In life arc viewed
with Jealous vigilance by courts OF
equity, but that while the courts deem
l.
tho interests of children in cases wherein
benetls are secured by children ostheir
| parents, tho same rule does not apply
where ontracts and 5convcyances are
made by which benefits are secured by
the parent to the children. Such con-
tracts will generally be presumed to be
free from suspicion, and the party claim
Ing that they were procured by undue
| influence must generally prove It. In
brief, the burden is upon tho appellees
| to prove that the bond was executed
under tho stress OF undue influence
Judge Buchanan says: While the bond
in this case was execu ted for services
rendered as agent. they were rendered
| undcran agreement, which had been ter
minated more than eight years before,
long after tho relation Of principal and
agent created by 1t had ceased to exist
and when they had the right to deal with
each other In the same manner as othcr
persons.
I'VE are OF opinion, therefore, that
there were no such confidential lrelations
existing between the appellant land HIS
mother. when the bond was executed as
raised any presumption OF its inyalidlty.
| The burden, therefore,, Of showing tina t
tho appellant had procured the execution
OF the bond by fraud or undue Influence
was upon the appellces.'' 8
The evidence did not sustain suchli n
| claim. The court IS OF opinion that, the
bond ofappellant is a valid claim against
| his mothers estate and that the ok
! captions to the report OF the commits
| sioner, which so found, Should have boon
overrlled and tho report confirmed.
The action Of the court In charging
| the appellant will, the rental value OF
! tho lands Of his mothers estate held by
him since her death is assigned as or
ror. The court holds that tho trial court
In entering a decree against him for the
rental value OF the lands without giving
him opportunity to show what taxes and
other proper charges. II any. paid by
,him, should have been set off against
tho use OF the land. was error. For this
error and disallowance OF appellants Debt
versed to That extent, and In other re-
spccts affirmed and the cause remanded
for further proceedings.
Franklin County Bond Case.
The Circuit Court Of Franklin county
| was again reversed In the case OF the
Rocky Mount Loan and Trust Company
VS.. Price, ctc. Judge George NJ. Harrison
writing the opinion Of the court.
This is a motion by the plaintiff In
error for Judgment against the dcfend-
ants lii error on two bonds each for $500.
| one payable one year and the other two
years after date with interest. These
bonds arc the joint obligations OF seyen
obllgors, of whom -. N. Hatcher, de-
J ceased, and II. c, Price, are two. Price,
ono Of tho defendants, llledga plea Of non
est factunl, and the cause was continued
as to hin and Judgment rendered against
the other SIX obllgors. ~ the next term
~ court q nunc pro tune order was en-
tered by consent. entering the sta tcments
Of defense Of II. c., Price and B, N !,
Hatcher's administrator Of record, INC
court rules on tic contention Of the
plaintiff in error that the Judgment for-
marly rendered is In coaganst liatcll-
cr's administrator that tho n.lnc PRO tune
judgment as set aside, estops them now
from denying that to be It's effect,
| Mic defense set up by Hatchcrs ad-