The Sunday telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1914-1927, 1916-04-16
SUPREME COURT
HANDS DOWN
OPINIONS
In Five Cases and sJTbi Are
Prepared in Three of the
Most important.

court Of appeals this week. The syl-
labi are as follows:
BY Judge Iyncn: Dorr We. Railway
Company. Pocshontas county. Re-
versed and bill dismissed.
BY Judge Miller: Lumber Com.
pany VS.. Odell, Nicholas county. Re-
yersed in part and decree for appel
liant.
BY Judge Ponenbarger: Smith VS..
County Court, Kanawha county.
Mandamus refused.
By Judge Williams: Fleming VS..
Iople, Marion county. Reversed and
judgment here. Fleming vs.. Morgan.
Marion county. Reversed and judg-
ment here.
State er rel S. r. Smith vs.. County
Court; Kanawha county. Mandamus
refused; Poffenbarger, Judge.
Clear legal right of the relator in
mandamus to have performance of
the act he seeks to coerce perform
ance of. and plain duty to perform
1t, on the part Of the respondent, are
essential to the award Of the writ.
Courts judicially know political
parties have rules and regulations for
their government and tribunals for
the prescription, Interpretation and
administration thereof, and that the
rights of members and inferior or
subordinate bodies of such organiza-
tons are determinable by such rules
and regulations within the parties
and by their tribunals.
In the absence Of fraud or VIOLA
ton Of positive law. courts will rec
ognize and vindicate rights accorded
by the decisions of such tribunals,
in those cases in which a statute
makes It their duty to recognize and
enforce them.
In the absence Of a statute confer
ring the Jurisdiction, courts will not
undertake to settle and determine
substantial controversies between ri
val political committees or factions
of such a committee. the right in
which is dependent upon party rules.
usages and customs. nor grant relief
to either OF such committees or fac
tions. as the representative Of the
party, in those cases in which the
party is entitled to relief. but will
refuse the relief asked until the con-
troversy is settled and determined by
some supervising board, committee
or other tribunal OF the party.
Neither of two factions OF a politi-
cal committee, dividing on substan-
tial controversies governed by party
usages, customs and rules. can be
recognized by the courts as having
prima facie right.
A remonstrance or protest by one
faction Of political committee made
to an officer or court acting in 3
ministerial capacity, against perform
ance of an act demanded on behalf
of the party. by another faction
claiming to represent 1t, and based
upon allegations of fact raising Ques-
lions as to the right Of such faction
to represent the party, determinable
by its supervising committees and
governing bodies, justifies refusal of
the officer of court to perform the
act demanded.
Dorr vs.. Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company; Pocahontas coun-
ty; decree reversed, bill dismissed;
Lynch, judge.
When an owner, who grants rail-
road right of way through his lands
for a valuable consideration ex-
pressed in the deed, and carrier
engaged in interstate commerce oral
ly agree that, us part OF the consider
alton, not so expressed, it will issue
to him annually for life pass over
Its road, and the agreement therefor,
though valid at the time, Is prohtb-
tied by a subsequent act of Congress.
entitled IAN act to regulate conn.,
MERGE" passed June 20. 1906, uu-
der the power conferred by the con-
stitution, the carriers failure or re-
fusal to issue the pass because 80
prohibited will not entitle the grant,
or to decree for specific perform
nnce of the oral agreement or for res
cission on the grant neither the
agreement nor the grant providing
for either remedy in the event OF
such failure or refusal.
Equity will not cancel deed for
a railroad right of way, made upon
n valuable consideration expressed
therein, when the sole cause alleged
for the cancellation Is the failure or
refusal of a carrier engaged In inter
state commerce to issue annual passes
for life as additional consideration
pursuant to an oral agreement not
oppressed in the grant nor otherwise
recognized as ground Of forfeiture
of the right conveyed, where compli-
ance with the agreement, although
rot originally yiolative of any rule or
law or statutory regulation, has
been prohibited by the act
of Congress passed June 90. 1906,
entitled IAN act to regulate COM
MERGE" and the carrier has accept
cd the conveyance by tho construc-
ton and operation Of its road upon
the way so granted to 1t.
since the passing Of that act. such
a carrier can not lawfully charge,
collect or receive ANYTHING except
money for personal transportation
over its road, or therefor or for any
service in connection Herewith de-,
mand. collect or receive a greater or
less or different compensation than
that specified in its published sched-
FLEMING vs.. Pople and Fleming vs.,
Morgan; Marion county; reversed;
Judgment here; Williams, president.
A widow, or her assignee. before
dover has been assigned, may main
tain assumpsit to recover damages
for Withholding dover in the lands
of her deceased husband.
She may also, after dover has be-
come consummate and before 1t has
been assigned, sell and convey It to
another. But conveyance Of her
estate In the land only does not give
- ,,-antaa a ri yht of action for dam