The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1918-03-12
'DPNIlNS HANDED
DOWN 81 COURT
Judge Rules Claim Of Sands
Executors Against Ruek-
man is Valid.

Raymond stated that he had adopted
1he plan on this occasion or giving
written opinions.
An opinion was handed down in the
demurrer to the bill in equity in the
cause OF william Dillon VS.. John Aueh
lar. 1t appears that Dtllon's son,
Thomas, was a member OF the Ancient
Order OF United Workmen and his
mother. AIRS. Bridget Dillon. was made
the beneficiary. She died before
Thomas but the beneficiary was not
CHANGED. Later Thomas got married
and he died and later his wife, Annie.
passed away. Thomas mad mace no
change in the original certificate.
Mueller, who Is Mrs Annie Dillon
father (ThomaS' wifel became the
beneficiary under his daughters VIII
and he came into possession OF tee A.
o. L. ". certificate and has maze an
effort to collect the $4,000 on these
grounds. The plaintiff, William Dat-
Ion. Thomas Dillon's father. also filed
a claim because he says he first ere
ated the insurance fund by paying the
premium for some time and also by
Thou,ae' letter TO the grand lodge OF
the order some time before be died.
Dillon seeks 10 collect from the lodge
before Mueller.
follows:
The facts thus briefly stated do show,
IN the opinion of the court. that there
IS some equity in the said bin and that
the plaintiff has an interest in the SUD-
iect matter OF this suit. The court IS
inclined to think that the plaintiff Is
entitled TO recover, first all OF the
amount OF said policy OF insurance. OF
II not. second, at least the amount tnat
he contributed for the purpose OF pay
ing the assessments and dues for the
several years the same were SO paid
by him. Such at least would pc the
office OF a court of equity TO reimburse
and make whole the plaintiff for said
sums of money thus expended by him.
However, in overruling the demur-
rer. which the court is inclined to do,
and does do, 10 said bill, It is not to be
understood that the couEt is prejudS-
fne. the case upon its merits unless
the claim OF circumstances set forth IN
said bill are clearly supported by the
proof, the court might take, and prob
ably would take, different view OF
this controversy upon its merits, from
the view herein expressed.
In the cause OF Lawrence s.
Schwenk, trustee, etc, VS.. Ambrose u.
Hess and others and the Bank OF Man
nington VS.. Ambrose D. Hess and oth-
ers, consolidated causes in chancery:
The purpose and object OF these suits,
which heretofore had been consol1dat-
ed and submitted to the court as such
consolidated causes, is to subject an
undivided one.half interest in four GER
tain tracts OF land situated in Lin
coin district.
The court held that the sum paid by
Mrs. Hess did actually go to the pay
ment OF part OF a debt held BY
creditor OF said firm. The court is,
therefore, Of the opinion that Mrs.
Hess IS entitled to recover back as
AGAINST said interest thus conveyed TO
her By her husband the amount OF
money actually paid by her, but sub
ject to the credit OF the gas rentals
that have been received by her begin
ming with the first. one received ABOUT
the last OF March, 1910. down to and
including the gas rental paid Tor the
year 1917.
The deeds we're set aside but that
sum Is prior charge to be paid first
out OF the proceeds OF sale.
In the cause OF Charles E. Ryan vs.
Ella v. Green an opinion was also
handed down. This suit was original
~ IAS 4Qp6I1uS046ASS SOGA SAAAA 49,
brought as a result Of setting on "a
acres OF land on the western end OF
54-acre tract belonging to the defend
ant, Ella v. Green.
The Intermediate court sustained
the exceptions of the defendant pro-
viding for an easement over her par
tition from the residue to the county
road. The matter came up in Circuit
court by an appeal from the lower
court. Judge Raymond granted the
easement or right Of way to the plain
tiff and infant defendants.
The most important opinion hand
ed down-by Judge Raymond this nom
inS was that in the cause OF L. E sands
and w II. Sands, executors, VS.. A. ).
Ruckmaa ct al. This suit was brought
for tn epurpose OF compelling Ruck-
man and others to contribute to the.
estate OF the late Joseph E. Sands, GER
tain sums Of money which It Is alleged
that Sands had advanced and paid to
the satisfaction and claims against the
Pearl Coal Mining company. which
said company was composed OF SANDS
Ruckman, John A. Clark. Lynn 8. Aof-
ner, C. S. Sands, Charles T. OFeFTeu'
ST., and Charles T. o'FerFeu, Jr-' as
stockholders, It was shown by proof
mar the original investment Of stock
taken By the original incorporates
was the sum OF 500, 900 and at that
time It waS not contemplated or be-
iieved that the Indebtedness created
for the purpose OF compelling Ruck-
coal properties and mining and oper-
atipE the same would be greater than
SIC. 600 each. The corporation became
insolyent In the sum of S1SO,000 and
this was the total assets OF the cor
poration. Ruckman filed a separate
answer in which he claimed he was
only liable for $1,000. After the com.
nany had BEEN formed G0uE OF the men
became insolvent and the burden fell
mon the other SIX. Sands not only
Daid his sixth and that Of his two sons.
amounting to $50. 600, but also paid the
share OF Ruclman and others. The