The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-06-30
I0|:|.P|lA|0|||N|||.s'!..O||.:. The.
|sU ! |! A
Handed Down Just Previous e 1It' 81 t IA
Adjournment orE the
u n s535 Stii11iner.
AN AcTlo j \ lN Y. Ej j: -:
Judge vyllittlc Sustaitls Former
ecision iii Case Of Interstate "a
II Coal and Iron Company. Vi!

10 ecisiot1 in Case 81 ltltElc 4: = tate
Coal and Iron Company. Vi
{specini t. The Tltnes- D ispntch) Y Il
WY TfIEv1L il. V Az, June 20. Y. At he
At time of gits adjourn Tsnt y 7 flursday the
Sfsuproiiet Court OF Appeals HANDED 4 down
N lOtpitiions III, 10 number OF cnseg
II s3hfg5S III NJ Murray and others sys. mart
u Dixon, tho judg nent of the Circuit Court
N 81 scott county was Al affirmed n . udgeT
n Buchanan delivering the decisio y q tlle
y court II W 81 I'd Sf3 so N IA
SI5sjohr Dixon and his wife inst ltutcd t an
4 ASTON i1ig ejectinert to recove * . 4 tract g
$Iiofs land 8 HI the possession gof AIcAdu rray
n and others Dixon hay lhg died prior %
IA he trial Of the cause, It. wa proceeded
n III in4ti,e mama Of his ~ ife. in hose
"a favor 4 Judgment was retlde RED ZOE a ne he
Hand EBucd for se "a ~. -
IA afr(ririing this judg ment the @5n--
M preno Court holds that the cause OF ' ac,
stion having arisen d uring coverttire ana i1
g 1.-THE husband having died ptior to the trial
"a of the case the cnussfo &C ~
abin8t he wife, ana the statute limiting the
n fine twithlrl which suit might be brough ~
AZ byS d married woman to twenty years ap-
VI 81 les "a "a Their than the limitation OF ten
4 years as would have bean tho case 1. "a
N the husband been living at the time OF
9btha trial Il It I Is also decided that the
"A 81 rtyi busted may recover tho premises
Hin cJectmerit Upon his possession merely
ana Ills right TO recover can only pc e1fl re-
a sisted by showing that the defendan - VINO
III en- tered upon and oustodgsshis possession
thor has title hi1ncle or sauthoriity Il e
n enter under the tit!e, and In such ca s.. Sc
{; the burden off, proof Is not NJ upon Il the
q plaintiff to show that defendant who
"a sousted him Is Il not the true ovner u OF
lad no authority to enter. VA Y
"A sAs the evidence showed that the plain
SEf!ff purchased the iund IN . prior %
Y 1.-THE beginning OF ton In Virg gina
"A securing to IL married women What Is
II known MS their statutory Repn RAJ e estate,
~ and thore was no proof tending TO snow
* that the land was her Pc #sepnr.ato
j4 estate It Is declared that tho fnBtEuction
Il telling Etfle Jury that the land was plain
5asttfI'sS common law estate. II II was pur--
I chased by her prior to 4 s7S. could II not
II have resulted In any injury \. Il hi s5
ItRis further held that no parol agree
y ment to establish a boundary. i and thus nv
Il exclude from the operation .of 4; Q .s deed
Il land embraced therein, can diYest, chango
ffeot the legal rights of the parties
II growing out OF the deed itself B
The court Ii Of opinion that: the evil
IN dence justified the verdict OF the jury,
n and the refusal Of the lower court to
net III aside is tter efore. approved
4 Suit for Mineral Lands.
sff Interstate Coal and Iron Companystvs.
~ Clintwcod Coal and Timber Company was
4 before the court upon a reheaTinE g Warded
4 TO va decision rendered In Richmond In
November 1905. & The same result = ls again
II reached IN Judge yYh les Mon. based
anot 81 ID, -
,9v,IS,
lEswas founded upon q certif lcate o. &C &C.
IL kr1owletl gtnent 10 an agreemept y between
II Jasper sutferlan and others and F. a.
81 stratton, which showed that Jasper Suth-
81 er1and Z name and cross mark unnttested
4 were attached to the agreement, but his
name did not appear IN the 6certiilcate q
n ack acknowledgement Upon the re ne ring
was shown that his name e1d appear
Il IN the original certificate. but was or
I'll EIroSnrlcously n copied into the record s8 as
u Iosep sutherland Ss9{ Sas
iii III twas sought to introduce this Stratton
M agreement into the record Tor the f4pur-
IL spbseS Of aft Getting Jasper Su herlnnd with
III notice of ythat 6was known as the limbo
u den compromise. II and at the for1ne me
"a hearing the court held that II was Prop
N e irly$ ex cluded. because 1t did not SHOW
f that sutherland n had acknowledged his
a sigma ure. q ii5ss53 sf5f9
III tai Is now decided that the paper was
atinadmissi BILE. notwithst landing its ac-
III knowl eclgnlent because the court & had
81 q READY held that the limbo dens oompro-
~ mise J nyi II the suit brought to annul.
aEit had no place in tho record of this suit,
\ and the STRAIT ton sreement was merely e
III al subordinate paper In relati lon TO the
III same subject mat teri that there having
\ been a neral o bjection to the intro
d ductton OF these papers. II for any rea-
4 son they were II OF nd mi sble the ruling
N az tie trial q court tnS excluding them
" N must be ASHAMED 8
q l554ss The subject Of controversy In this case
"A = tho minerals underlying the surfa &c
,flof the Sparti cular tract Of land IN cues
Zion. title to which, It zig claimed 81 has
been Il sen arated II from the surface. VI n
q q The court says that 1t cannot clare
y "a counsel request, even II It should be
II tof that ,oplnion, that the Interstat to Coal
a e. Iron Company has an equitable right
81 Is the minerals Sunderl wing the land in
4 oont royersy, for the tus.ctons OF the
Il court are exhausted Vhen y has ruled t.
\ upon the specifi ASH garments Of error,
Il ana al mere ad ylsory opinion t toucni9g ex-
|traneous a eations, ex pressed for the spur-
Dose 81 sinfl uenclng future litigation,
n would be H gratuttous and funwarra nted ,ls
j Fault Of the Miners. n
"a Il rhe Judgment against tho coal COM
Il pa ,,s, W., Mace, rendered In the Circuit
n Court Of Visa county, VI is II reversed by
u Judge III arr!son'B opln lon. Y:
u While underwriting coal In the mine OF
N tho company wi TIL an II elec trfo u ma
Chine, some overha hanging coal fell upon
Mace and broke his Il leg, / for hlehf
Il injury he sued to recover anna ges. The
n opinion dcals only With the ssignnent
slofis errorEto the action Of the court IN re-
Efuslpg to set aside the verde as ii con- ~
u trary7 to the law and the evi dence. y I'd II
\ vs. he review OF the evidence, consisting
L Of the tes tirnony OF Mace and ono other
witness (noneJ having been intro uced on
a behalf OF the efend Ian y. shows thatlt these
q electric maohines are used to cut under
4 the tom Of the seam OF coal q shallow
81 swathe5 for q distance II Of II six feet. 80