The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-02-16
SOLDIERS
IOME ALL RIGHT
Court Held That Lee
Had Absolute Power of
alton, With No Restric-
hs Whstsoever-Decree
Affirmed on Appeal.

K MOND, VA. Spocial
rs papers exclusive announce
that the collateral heirs of the
~ Snanning M. Robinson contem-
~ bringing suit TO question the
NJ OF the Commonwealth to lake
er the soldiers Home property in
~ mas attracted a great deal of at
n1on, especially as the litigation
oignt IN some way embarrass the
3planB for the erection of the Confed-
orate Memorial Institute
- The case OF Or. II. Wythe Davis vs.
49,. Lee Camp, No. I. reported in
mia Decisions. Vol. l. page 1872
directly on this point
myers aud others who have look
AM y the matter. however say they
not see how the suit could possibly
prosecuted with any hope OF sue
eSs. as they believe the Virginia SUI
Iprene Court already has settled ALI
I doubts as to the title Of the Soldiers
Home property.
Along about 1855 or 1889 the camp.
hnding itself in need Of funds with
which TO maintain the home, decided
20 sell of a part OF the property
nine acres.
In 1889 the board of visitors was
authorized to go ahead with the deal.
thought that West End lots would
rrprove paying investments. But the
slump which subsequently came dis
Sappointed many who had speculated.
n
slice of the Soldiers Home realty, was
among those who invested at that
time After entering into the con-
tract with the camp he refused to &C
cept a deed, on the ground that the
board of visitors who made the sale
had no power 10 do
Suit was brought in the Chancery
Court by the camp for specific per-
Torrance of the contract, and Judge
w s. Barton held the sale TO have
nd he
PENDANT to complete his purchase.
From this decree DR.. Davis appeal
ed to the Supreme Court but that
tribunal. on January II, 1894. affirm
ed the lower court, or. rather. refused
the appeal. which, in effect. was the
eame thing.
section 1865 of the Code Of 1887.
since repealed. was the law bearing
on the case at the time. This had ref
erence to the real estate which cor
porations might hold.
Judge Barton gave careful study TO
the matter and prepared somewhat
lengthy decision. which clearly sets
forth his views. This appears in the
In the opinion Judge Barton holds
that the land was conveyed by Chan
ming, NJ. Robinson to the camp for a
fee simple absolute without any trust
or restriction Of any kind whatso-
ever
In this connection the judge says:
Il think the corporation has full
power of alienation, which. by the
common law, is incident to the own
ership. and is expressly given by the
general statute. Nor does the
necessarily limited duration OF time
I'm which the object and purposes of
the corporation (the camp can ope-
rate. I'm any wise affect the title in a
grantee OF the corporation"
III. as the Chancery Court held the
camp had no restrictions on it's power
OF alienation, il would seem to follow
logically that IL had the right To give
the Commonwealth an interest by way
OF remainder in the land after March
-ST 1914, provided the State furnished
Specified annuities for the support OF
the home.
And by the same line OF reasoning
II the States title is good. the Legis-
lature OF 1910 had the right TO give a
part OF the property to the Confede-
rate Memorial Association as a site for
the memorial institute.