The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-04-30


.f3ert 4, nrovIsfons FOR gifts over the
ofI1er- personr. n case they should
iaf. les TIncz ~, fssre- may nav over
srTcb nortions- an tae happenings OF
s1Ich CONTINGENCIES without requiring
the legatees to give security safely
n. lraen the nronertv and have II
feat M their estates j. manner pre-
scribe Blythe VIII.
2. The non-residence of such a
Ilepatee- m the abgence.of other facts
/ indicative OF danger OF loss OF the
lpronerty. az the result of such pay
iment. constitutes no ground for the
REQUIREMENT OF such security.
8. The Insertion in a decree CON
lstrrcting such q VIII at the instance
NJ the EXECUTOR. OF a reservation to
interests parties of right to require
isuch security. IN the event Of future
cause therefor. Is not erroneous,
~@ss
Anderson vs.. Anderson, Harrison
ger
/. A deree in a suit 10y a wife
against her husband for a divorce
ana the custody OF their woung fe-
male caiIdreen- pronounced by a
court of general Jurisdiction OF
state other than this. having jurts-
dic.tIon of the parties and-iboth causes
OF action by process and pleading,
awarding to the plaintiff the custody
or the crildren and granting her
divorce, is valid and binding upon
the parties in this state, IN IS award
Of custody of the children, even
though so much of it as grants the
divorce NAV he void and the children
may have been beyond the purisdic-
/ ton of the court at the time OF the
4 2 Though the father of legiti-
mate chilli Is legally entitled to have
the custody and care of it. under or
binary circumstances, court OF
equity, in the exercise of its general
jurisdiction and power to protect
those who are unable to care tor
themselves, may deprive him thereof
and place it in the care of the moth
er. when lite welfare demands such
action on account of the fathers un-
fitness for the discharge OF MS par
s%s"
I Rosencrance VS.. Kelley ct al, Ran
iolph county, judgment reversed and
case RENAMED Judge Lyncn.
/ l. Where a declartion in assump-
sit contains the common counts, and
a special count on a written contract
as . basis for recovery of an agreed
rental of machinery and unliquiiated
! damoges there to occasioned by neg
Iligence imputed to defendants, the
Natter may, upon affidavit when nee
I time before final judgment upon a
/ dnIv executed writ of enquiry.
Until the execution of such
writ where requisite. an Office judg-
man+ does not become final, preclud-
/ ing the right to plead to the action
@s@
KeIIv vs WeIIshurg Etc. Company
81 al an5 Adamson and Murdoch VS.
WeIiebnre Etc Company ct al,
RrooIxe county. reversed and re-
mand nudge Poffen barger.
A single appeal may be taken
from DEGREES in two separate suits
nrorarad submitted ana heard as
pne Nv aereement OF the parties and
onns.y+ 81 Inc court. expressed or
snnIfa5
All ~ the series Of valid mort
e,oga bon6s though issued at differ
eat +imes are concIusively presumed
- a..,,. baan iss1Ied at the date or
~ ~ S-acord afion If the mortgage.
General creditors OF a cor
u..i,,s issuing such bonds are con
pI,'s;s-sI,, ,9resume1 to have extended
ti,aJ,. credit nm the faith OF the cor
nora+a nronarty subject to the mort
&c IN so far as the bonds are is
se e. nancy for the corporate
Turnoses
such bonds are entitled to
,,raferance in the a1iustme of the
~, - no,-r,orats nronertv. over