The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-03-15
THIRTY DECISIONS
HANDED down
SCOTTISH UNION WILL NOT PAY
VIRGINIA SHIRT COMPANY
FIRE LOSS.
BROKERS MUST PAY
RICHMOND MAN WINS SUIT AGAINST
MILLER 4 COMPANY-sAUN-
DERs wEyANOkE TITLE
GOOD.

The Supreme Court OF Appeals
hanueu GOWN a long asst Of opin.ons
ye.le. Jay, many Oh lacm lnsui,IhS
a.....o.s Oh i.Aore tnah PASSING ln-
te.vs.. uoln Io.any anu to tle state
at n,f~e.
lne ,ung drawn out legal hght or
the oco,t.sn Union anu 4>aLo.aL IN
sulanle Company against tne var
K.i,Ia onirI LonApdny was Drought 10
eHu py iescisai or me JuooahSnt
gwen the cnnt COMPANY Tor aooue
$1,000 against the Insurance Som-
pauy eaAiy ia-t year In tne corpora
ton Court OF the city OF rreurrAAks-
burg. Ine INSURANCE LON pdny was
one of a numoer OF com paiiies Alter-
ested, total OF $ol.vvv INSURANCE
be,ns carried. OF when the ocottisn
Unloa had $500. 1t was GAINED
that the loss OK The Virginia enlrt
Company on its sock, on winch
these poncles cover ed WAS s5s.VVv,
Inc sauuity of the insui Succ was
fought on the ground that the iron
safe clause of the policy and the
clause requiring an inventory 10 be
kept had not been complied with.
The court dismissed on the ground
OF wan, OF JurIsuiction the writ OF
error in Western Union Photographed
company w. "hilc. ms p" aS q
caes wnere n telegram was r., ID at
stanton to be .s-ti,eFed In fisder-
icksburg. BY reason of the negli-
gence of the relay office At Washing
ton the message was not delivered
The Corporation Court OF the city OF
Fredericksburg gave Judgment fos'
the statutory penalty. and the judg-
ment stands.
Assurance Company Loses.
A second interesting insurance
case was Involved In the writ OF err
ror OF the Norfolk Fire Insurance
Corporation VS.. T. Gilbert Wood
which resulted In the judgment OF
the lower court. the Circuit Court OF
Sottoway. being affirmed. giving
Wood Judgment fer $1,000. Wood
was having a large building erected
at Burkeeiiie. He was solicited for
insurance by an agent OF the plain
till In error. Wood authorized q
policy OF $4,000 TO be written. The
agent. Jones, wanted To write si5,-
coo. Wooe declared he had prom
ised other agents certain insurance
and agreed only 10 $4,000 policy.
When the policy was delivered he
did not examine II. Later after fire
had destroyed the property he found
that clause had been placed In the
policy invaiidating IL II any sther IN
suranca was placed On the porperty.
Oi sn,.,.-. to Labor.
A servant may rely upon the
promise Of the master to repair de-
fects for q. reasonable time. but II be
remains In the saryice after the ex-
pirat,on OF a reascnaple time for
remedying the defect he 10 thereby
deemed to have waived his objection
and assumed the risk The question
for the jury to determine is not So
much whether the r.fsairs were made
within reasonable time as It Ii whe
Their the time which elapsed eetween
the pf omise to repair and the INJURY
vas saaicient 10 put the p;aintii7
upon notice that the defendant did
not intend to make the repairs, there
by shifting a~ain to the plaintiff the
FISK which the master assumed when
no made the promise. This Is the
doctrine laid down by the court in re-
yers.ng the Corporation Court OF the
city In Danyille in, the case o Carter
: VS. the Riverside and Dan River Cot
ton Mills Company. Carter was an
oiler In the plant OF the Cotton Com
; pany. He was compelled. in the uis-
charge of his duty, to stoop very low
ly open cox-whetis in a poorly light
ed room TO see II the vat was fulin He
complained of tins danger and asked
that the cog wheel be hooded. and
the foreman promised to do 30 as
soon as possible. The man was nurt
fle sued and was given judgment. The
fragment Is reversed and the case re-
manded lack for a new trial.
Exoneraled Judge Watts.
Dealing with the Questions In
yoiyed upon their merits. the Supreme
Court OF Appeals affirmed the decision
Of the Hustin e Court OF Portsmouth
In the case OF William II. Peters ct ais
vs. Abe Wa.erly Waterfront Devel-
opment Company and others. The
plaintiffs, Peters and others. held for
ty-two snares OF the total OF six hun
dred OF the waverly Company. The
property Of the company WAS sold te
NAdnsndoIf * Williams. md Later the
Atlantic Coast Terminal Company
promoted by Messrs. Middendorf am
Williams, was substituted as the pur-
chaser. The plaintiiIs charge that II
1. this change thaseuia amount de freif
the INST purchasers was no. required
such sum beng about 100000
whereas but $s2.5oo was collected
They also charged JuIge Leigh X
WAITS and w. C. Maupin, Jr., tbs
committee arranging the settlement
with bad faith and with violation oil
their duties as officers and directors
OF The Wa,erly Company
The court exonerates these gentle
men. commends their luminous and
compy ehensive explanation OF the, en-
tire transaction Hau afnffns the ucct
y vion OF the lower court.
Mi.Ier = ca Must Pay.
Tho supreme Court affirmed thu
I judgment Of the Circuit Court Of
\ the city OF Richmond In the case o'
Miller & Co. Va. Lyon. which judg
nent gave Mr.. Lyon a Judgment O
+ 37,l45. Miller Y CO., ~ stock brokers
had bought and sold IN margins fol
four years up to July. 1910. for Mr
& LYON. At that time they had. aftel
thoir agent had agreed tn carry GER
|. tain stocks for Mr.. Lyon until thu
! following day. closed out a portion
OF Mr.. Lyons holdings. Mr.. Lyon
according to his promise, put up tn
: uoucy to protect his stocks. but the,
s had been sold. He sued and recov
cred Judgment Tor the loss occasion
cd hy the act OF Miller a. TO.
City Wilma Water Suit.
In the ease OF the city Of Forfolb
II. the Norfolk Water Cvmpanv. TIL,
4 Circuit Court OF that city was re-
yeysed, the lower courts decree hav'
ing perpetua.iy en.oinsd the city %
- a