The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-02
DECISION DAY IN
SUPREME COURT
Many Interesting Cases Handed
Down BY the Judges OF the
Highest Court.
COURT REVERSED.
Railways Rights in the Matter
OF Overhead Crossings Are
Set Forth.
RICHMOND COURT REVERSED

Yesterday was opinion day in the
Supreme Court Of Appeals. Twelve
opinions were handed down, some OF
them being of great Importance. Below
will be found a syllabus of some OF the
more important ones.
In the case of Wilson, Trustee, ct ais.
VS.. Langhornc. Trustee, ct ais. from the
Corporation Court of l~Lynchburg. the
opinion was by Judge Keith, VINO says.
The case before us Is the sequel TO
that of Wilson, Trustee. VS.. Lahghorne
and Others. reported in 1O2 Va, PIP. oSl'
Tho case was then remanded 10 the
CORPORATION Court Of Lynchburg to be
proceeded in In accordance Win the
opinion then expressed.
"a controversy having arisen over the
disposition of the fund. Il final decfee
was entered in the Corporation Court
distributing 1t in accordance WIN its
opinion, which is filed in the record
Prone tina decree this appeal was taken.
"As 1t states In n very satlsiaclo.s
manner the reasons which controi us
decisions, We adopt the opinion VI ING
court, and affirm its decree
rho iudee then quotes and adopts the
opinion In 1O2 Va. PIP. eSl.
Fisher Gould Controversy.
Redwood n others VS., Rogers ana o'n-
ers. IL another litigation growing out
of the conflict Between the Fisher n
Gould interests. The case comes from
the Hastings Court of the city OF Peters
burg where the decree of the court was
in favor OF Fisher, Davis and Rogers,
and upon the appeal OF REDWOOD an!
others the Supreme Court, being OF opin-
ion that the charge of fraud was not
established, affirms the decision OF the
lower court.
The opinion of Judge Harrison is quite
brief, Notwithstanding the voluminous
record. After setting out such of the
history of the Southside Railway and
| Development Company, from It's creation
| down to the institution of this suit. as
Is material to the decision of the case,
he proceeds as follows:
The contention OF appellants, In brief,
Is that they are the holders of $4,000 of
the bonds of the Southside Railway ami
Development Company, which were le-
gally issued; and their effort is to re-
quire the cancellation of the $4,000 OF
bonds of the same company held by ap-
p%ellees. which, it is claimed were He
gally issued to the injury and waste OF
the security for the bonds of appellants.
The grounds for this contention are:
a. That the issue OF the bonds held by
the appellees was induced by the fraud
VI St II. siiNA 49, q - S0a
trolling interest in the stock of the COM
pany, and that such bonds are therefore,
void in the hands of Fisher or any other
party having knowledge OF the facts with
relation to such transaction. and (2) that
irrespective of the question of actual
fraud, the issue of the bond by the COM
pany, under the facts and circumstances
of the case, was IN ultra wires act, and
that. therefore. UGH bonds are subject
tn nnpCp1tatiop In tho- bn pIo of nnv M vi. 4.
having knowledge of the facts.
The charge of fraud is one easily made,
and the burden Is upon the party alleg-
Ing 1t to establish it's existence, not by
doubtful and inconclusive evidence, but
clearly and conclusively. Fraud cannot Re
presumed 1t must be proved by clear and
satisfactory evidence. 1t is true that
fraud need not be proved by positive and
direct evidence. but may he established
by facts and circumstances sufficient to
support the conclusion of fraud. But
whether It be shown by direct and posi-
tive evidence, or established by circum-
stances. the proof must fbe clear and cos
vincing, and such as to satisfy the con-
science of the chancellor, who should be
cautious not to lend too ready an ear 10
the charge. Story's ESD, Vol. /, sec. 1904:
Herring VS.. Wickham. 30 Graft, G26:
Moore VS.. Ullman, so Va, 3O7: Gregory
VS.. Peoples, 1dem., 355; Engleby VS.. Har-
vey, % Va. 40; Jordan VS.. Liggan. %
Va, GIG: Alsop VS.. Catlett, 81 Va, 1854.
IL would serve no good purpose, and
would, indeed, be impossible to review in
detail within the limits Of an opinion. of
reasonable length, facts and circumstances
which are covered by Il record of more
than 200 printed pages. 1t must suffice,
therefore, to say that, having In view the
rules governing this class of cases, which
are so we'll established by the authorities
cited. we have, withsdue regard to the
rights of all the parties concerned. after
a careful consideration of the records,
reached the conclusion that the charge
of fraud is not sustained with such clear
ness as to justify a court of equity in
cancelling the bonds held by theap .psllees.
on the ground that their issuance was the
result of bad faith.
We are further of opinion that in isstl-
ing the bonds now held by the appellees.
the Southside Railway and Development
Company was not guilty OF an ultra wires
act. The company certainly had this
power, both under It's charter and under
the terms of the mortgage. to issue these
bonds for a lawful purpose. They We're
issued, as provided by the mortgage, upon
the written consent of two-thirds of the
stockholders. and upon the written con-
sent OF the substituted trustee in such
llioilbdSt, anu were lSSueu, as expressed
in the resolutions adopted by the board
OF directors, for the purpose OF paying
debts already created, and otherwise pro-
noting the interests of the company,
The contention that the bonds were
Issued in an unlawful manner rests
chiefly upon the same facts and clrcum-
stances which were relied on to support
the charge of fraud, The same considera-
ton Of the record which leads to the con
clusion that tho alleged fraud was not
established c%onstralrs us to hold that
there Is no sufficient ground for the posi-
ton that the bonds were issued in an un-
lawful manner.
In the view we have taken of the case,
it Is unnecessary to consider the de-
murrer filed by the appcllees to the cross
bill of appellants.
Upon the whole case. we are of opinion
that there Is no error In the decree APP
pealed from. and It must be affirmed.
Another Richmond Case.
In the case OF the Smokeless Fuel
Company VS., Senton & Sons. being an