The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1907-03-28
RaTSYsC. 4 O. Rall,vax.

The ipdEment OF the Fayette
county conrtsin the case OF Roy VS..
the {. SO, Railway Company has
Deeh revert94 by the supreme court,
Roy shipp&1R trunk from Seweu to
some ptptlp Randolph county. not
on deteRd&nt <company's line. The
trunk Was&l9st and he sued the c.
q -. fh9M0pinion was by Judge
brannon apd the syllabus follows:
j, In the absence OF q special
contract a$Failroad company, by re-
sceiVing. goods for transportation
over Its own line and other lines
herewith connected, is only bound
% carry thesxoods oyer its own line,
connecting, Carrier -.
ity Of the company is sought to be
extended beyond such carriage and
delivery Viii not be Inferred from
loose AND ,s4onbtfui expressions, but
must be established by clear and
SatlsfactorY evidence. Taxing
through fare on the receipt Of the
goods does not establish such liabil-
Mann v. Braize.
The deffee;of the lower court has
been an1rn1ed in the Fayette county
case OF Mann VS.. Braize. Three cred:
ltors Of M.> S. Braize sued to en-
force lien on certain real estate
known as,Athe Hotel Altamont, in
E:ayetteVtllet, They lost the case in
the lower court, which, decision is
aHrmed: Yhe syllabus reads:
One persian pays ., liens binding
iana OF another, or nays for i'm
ptoVemepts 5upon it. A creditor OF
the person SO paying has no lien
on such land. and cannot subject
1t to the aRayment Of. his debts, In
the absencafof fraudulent intent.
DeHaney v. Cook.
An important case Involving the
Hart Goal s. company, coming up
from Marion county, was decided
Yesterday In the supreme court the
decree of the lower court being mod.
1hed and aff1rmed> The opinion was
written by Judge McWhorter. The
case is styled Devaney VS. Cook ct
al and grows out Of transaction by
W. b: Brook and J. c., Cook, who
as officers ,of the Hart company
bought certain coal lands in Bel
mont county, Ohio. 1t is alleged that
mere was graft in these deals. The
syllabus follows: /
exists primarily in behalf of a cor
poration against directors, officers
and othersffor wrongful dealing
with the, corporate property or
wrongful exercise of corporate fran
ch1ses so, that the remedy should be
obtained thEough suit by and In
the name OF the corporation and the |
corporation either actually or vir- !
finally refuses to institute or proce- |
cute sueh suit, then, in order to pre-
vent a 1atfnre Of justice, suit NAV be |
bfought and maintained by stock |
holders either individually or suing
on behalf offthemselves and all 9TH
ers similarity situated against the
wrong doing directors, officers and
other perSonSn -. :
2. In 3suci1} case the corporatiou
itself should be joined as a party
defendant.
. :. When In such suit by stock |
holders against such officers and di-
rectorS OF a corporation, the personal !
of one who has died
are made paSties< defendant and the
Dill, seeks tGShold the estate of the
uecendent liable and it appears that |
the' deceased acted and was alike
Wi 81 those still living, the
decree for the restitution Of the
FUNDS TO theGeorporation should he |
as WeH against the estate of the de-
ceased IS against the. living defend
ants -
: 4; Syllabus, points 2, 8 and 6 in |
GosnQrn:Y. Snodgrass, II w. v. III,
approved and9sppl:ed, = =, 80
s3odhfay ". Bluefleld.
me case m Cooley VS.. the City
OF Bluefeld, sfEqmss.. / Mercer county
mas been reversed' and remanded, the
opinion being by Judge Pofenbarg-
eF- GQdbey obtained Judgment
againSt the city in the lower court
Tor. alleged damage to his, property
occas1oned yHraising the grade Of q