The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-29

! Judge made doctrine of charging in
equity
1T is absolutely impossible to rec
oncile the freedom and emancipation
conferred upon married women by the
Constitution, or even the Slight re-
strictions upon them in the statutes,
with the letters of the judicial legisla-
ton forged by the doctrine of charges
in equity The two ideas are as ire
concilabIe as light and darkness and
are opposed as the medieval ideas of
subsection of married women and the
modern idea of the equality of rights
which found tardy, though clear ex-
preston in this State in the Constitu-
ton of 1868. The attempt to recon-
ellie this judicial legislation with the
Constitution and the statute, led to
the ineXtricable confusion set out in
1873, n. c., 431-434."
DigestS of other opinions follow:
CbaS. c. OYSTER VS. lola Mining Co. ct
at. appellants: from Montgomery.
No Error.
Appeal from judgment ovcrruling
demurrer to complaint. The grounds
of demurrer were misjoinder of par
ties. misiOinder of causes of action,
failure TO state cause of action
against lola Manufacturing Company
and failure TO state a cause of action
against NJ. l. Jones. defendant. The
complaint is for the recovery of prop
erty alleged to belong to the plaintiff
and converted to the use of defend
ant Jones through q series of alleged
stock-tipnsactions. with tho conniv-
ance of the defendant corporation and
to the injury of the plaintiff.
Held: Where two defendants are so
intimately connected in Il series OF
transactions as to render an eXamina-
ton and analysis of the grounds of
complaint impossible unless both de-
PENDANTS are maGo parties and the en-
tire series of transactions are gone in
to. tho rule that where a general
right is claimed. arising out of a Sc
rieS of transac tions tending to one end,
the plaintiff may join several causes OF
action against defendants who have
distinct and senarate interests, for the
purpose of n conclusion of the whole
matter i'm one suit" obtains.
Albert Ellcr and Wife vs. c W.
Railway Company: from Catavba.
No Error.
On September 5. 1904, the feme
plaintiff. then Dora Anderson, was a
passenger on defendants train from
Granite Falls to Hickory having as
baggage telescope ValiSe,' contain
ing clothing, letters. photographs and
other articles which was checked to
Hickory and should have arrived there
on the 5th of said month. but did not
arrive until the evening of the 18th.
The feme plaintiff was going to Hick-
DRY to be married to Albert Eller, to
whom she was affianced. on the morn
ing of the 9Th but in consequence of
the delay in the delivery of her bag
gage the wedding was delayed until
the 18th. Feme plaintiff refused to re-
ceive the baggage, as the valise was torn
and the clothes wet and muddied and
had before this action sued defendant
and recovered $50 damages and the
clothes. The present suit is brought
for damages by reason of great moru-
fcation and mental anguish. The hus-
band, Albert Eller, joins as co-plaintiff
with the same allegations.
Held: 1. Except in the case of
continuing or repeated wrong all dam
age resulting from a single wrong a
cause Of damage must be recovered in
one suit and the demand cannot be
split and several actions maintained
for the senarate items of damage.
2. Without conceding that mental
anguish IS an element of damage in
such case. the feme plaintiff could
have had such damage as she was en-
titled to recover included in her former
settlement and. having elected not to
do so. is afterwards precluded from
claiming such damages.
g. In the case Of the co-plaintln,
Albert Eller in the absence of evil
dence that the defendant knew of the
intended marriage so as to have con-
temDlated damage to him. causes OF
damage claimed by him are too remote
and his inclusion rs plaintiff was
misjoinder Of parties.
Gwyn- Harper Manufacturing CO.. Ap-
peIIant: VS. w X Clocr ct al. from
Caldwell New Trial.
Action to recover landd and for
damages for trespass. The jury
found in response to the issues that
the plaintiff was owner of only part
of the lands described in the com
plant that the defendants had not
committed treSpass and that the plain
tiff was not entitled to recover. In
their answer the defendants admitted
that e. F. CIoer had executed n deed
to one Monroe Minish for the land de-
Scribed in the complaint but aVerred
that the last call in the description was
erroneous and due to mistake ana
oversight of the craftsman, now de-
ceased, and the mutual mistake an /
oversight of the grantor and the gran
tee, or by oversight of the grantor ana
fraud the grantee. The defendants in
the trial introduced the grantor e. f.
CIoer who claims to be the owner of
the land in dispute and proved by him
that at the time of the sale of the land
by him to Minish a mistake was made
in the calls of the deed whereby what
should have been West to Glover
back line, read in the deed North and
that running West as contended by the
defendants the land in dispute would
have been left out of the boundary
conveyed to Minish.
Held: 1. The form of the issues
did not justify the reception of the
evidence, there being no exception to
the issues by either party and no is
sues rendered by the defendants.
9 If the defendants relied upon
the equitable matter set out in the
answer, it was their duty to tender
appropriate issues upon which the
facts set out in their allegations could
be found.
Matte Hutchinson vs.. Southern Rail
way Company. appellant from Ca
taWba. No Error.
The former plaintiff bought ticket
from Hickory to Liberty, S. c.. via
Charlotte, where she missed connec-
ton and took the next train at 1920
at night. The train she took did not
stop at Liberty and it was so printed
ON the schedules. but plaintiff testified
that she had no notice of the fact and
tbot the conductor of the train car