The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-26

and, Kennedy dying before the testator,
his three surviving children became en-
titled to the legacy. Two of the children
were paid their portion. Upon proof that
lie. Z. Kennedy, the other child, had been
resident OF the State, but had been
gone from it more than seven years
without returning, the Corporation Court
OF the city OF Norfolk, on January z, 1896,
decreed that he was and should be pre-
sumed to be dead, and appointed his
brother administrator of his estate. ~ few
days after his appointment the admin
istrator collected his brothers share OF
the legacy from d. Seddeii's surviving
executor. In 1904. C. u. Kennedy, who
had been absent from tho State for many
years. made demand upon the executor
for his share of the legacy, and upon his
refusal to pay 1t, instituted suit against
him, which resulted in Kennedy's obtain
ing a decree for the sum demanded.
Section ss7s of the Code provides: 'If
any person who shall have resided in
this State go from and do not return TO
the State for seven years successfully,
he shall be presumed to be dead in any
case wherein his death shall come In
question. unless proof be made that he
was alive within that tlme." A doubt
is expressed by the court as to whether
the Legislature intended by that statute
to authorize the courts to grant letters
Of administration upon the estate or such
q person irrespective OF death; but that
IL such was it's intention, 1t Is in viola
ton of the duo process of law clause
of the fourteenth amendment to tho Con-
stitution of the United States.
The court further holds that in the
absence of the equitable circumstances,
which generally contribute the grounds
for the application of the doctrine of
laches, the appellee cannot be said to be
guilty of such laches as will bar his
| right to recover.
| The decree appealed from Is affirmed.
Norfolk Tax Case.
| In the case of Selden, substituted trus-
tee. vs.. Brooks, collector, from the Court
| of Law and Chancery of the city of Nor
folk, the court Judge Whittle delivering
the opinion, affirmed the decision of the
lower court
| The case deals with the validity Of Ger
tain taxes assessed by the city of Nor
folk for tho years 1898. 1899 and 1900 upon
a trust fund of intangible personal proper
ty in the hands of a nonresident trustee
in the income from which the cestu que
trust. Elizabeth r. Selden, citizen of
the State, domiciled In that city, has a
life estate. ~
| The contention made was that the DOM
| icil of n nonresident trustee fixes the
stus of such property for the purposes
| of taxation. The Supreme Court, how
ever, refuses to sanction this contention
but decides that under the statute the
situs of this property for such purposes
| is the domiCil of the cestui que trust,
thereby affirming the decision of the
lower court.
| In closing Judge White said. ut is
suggested that there are other statutes
which authorize the assessment of the
tax, but the view already taken dis
poses of the question and renders further
consideration of the case unnecessary.
Mechanics Liens.
| In the case of Sands. trustee. VS.. Stagg
and others, from the Chancery Court OF
the city of Richmond, Judge Buchanan
delivering the opinion, the court affirmed
the decision Of the lower court.
| This Is an appeal from a decree rem
dcred in three chancery causes heard to-
gether. the object of all of them being
to subject n lot and five houses built
| thereon to the payment Of mechanics and
builders liens, asserted by the complains
ants, for materials furnished and work
done in the erection OF the houses.
Error is assigned to the court in over
rt'ing the demurrer to the bills filed in
| he several causes. attSea gH5l tl.st
The inst lis that the bills fail to al
ess that the suits were instituted within
,iN morths from the time the whole
amount covered by teh liens became pay
able.
The opinion says:
Where tho record shows at the time